Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Decommissioning

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the decommissioning of IRA weapons and explosives.

Peter Hain: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his appointment to the Privy Council. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	General de Chastelain's report that the IRA's arsenal of weapons had been decommissioned marked a landmark in opening the way forward to a peaceful and democratic future for Northern Ireland, coming as it did after the IRA's statement in July.

Nicholas Winterton: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his Privy Councillorship—much deserved and, if I may say so, long overdue. [Interruption.] Indeed, the right hon. Member for North Antrim. May I ask the Secretary of State how General de Chastelain and the two witnesses could be so certain that all the IRA weaponry and explosives had been put beyond use? How and why did the intelligence services downgrade their estimate of weapons and explosives? Is it not time that the Government stopped pandering to the terrorist thugs of Sinn Fein-IRA and provided equality of treatment and fairness for the Unionist population?

Peter Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the hon. Member for North Antrim—

Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Member for North Antrim.

Peter Hain: I am not sure that the hon. Member for North Antrim has taken the oath yet, but I stand to be corrected on that. Hopefully, he will have done so by the next Northern Ireland questions.
	I quote—it is important for the House—from the statement made by the independent international agency for decommissioning. It determined that
	"the IRA had met its commitment to put all its arms beyond use in a manner called for by the legislation".
	Everybody understands that General de Chastelain and his fellow commissioners are people of total integrity and independence. They have made the position absolutely clear and I have just quoted them.

Ian Paisley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for their remarks. I am grateful to them and to the House for their reception of me this day.
	I remind the Minister that the general and the two witnessing clerics put it firmly on the record that the arms that they saw decommissioned were largely old arms. The priest who was there said, "If you put them to your chest and pulled the trigger, they might kill you." That is a serious statement, which was added to: the real modern weapons formed a tiny percentage of the arms. Does that not worry the Secretary of State? We know that the IRA has modern weaponry, which needs to be put away. It is essential that that is done.

Peter Hain: It is indeed essential that all weapons are put away, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase. I think he will agree, however, that the statement made by General de Chastelain and verified by the two independent clergymen was emphatic that the IRA's arsenal had been put beyond use. We must recognise that that was the view of the independent commission.

Mark Durkan: The IRA's failure to decommission is what caused suspension in the first place. Now that the IRA has decommissioned, does the Secretary of State recognise that we should be clearly on a countdown to restoration of the institutions? In order to give the public confidence in that regard, does he believe that the politics of the concession of the weak, with parties doing handstands one week and head staggers the next, combined with a budget that hits the weak with a tax hit for years, is the best way to give the Northern Ireland public confidence that we are moving to taking responsibility ourselves?

Peter Hain: It is crucial that the Independent Monitoring Commission's reports—the first one, which I published last week, and the one expected in January—become a bible for testing whether the promises to end paramilitary and criminal activity have been delivered on the ground. So far, so good. If and when that is clear, there will be no reason for parties not to engage in discussions towards the resumption of power sharing. The draft budget that I published yesterday, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, proposes a massive increase in health spending: an extra £450 million, and a massive increase in education spending—an extra £100 million. Yes, rates will go up by 19 per cent. to fund new child care support, new skills and science investment and new investment in renewable and clean energy, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that as it will assist the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would do much to restore public confidence if those who inflicted such terrible misery with the weapons that have been decommissioned expressed some regret or remorse?

Peter Hain: Yes, I do.

David Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend expand on a statement that he made the other week about on-the-runs legislation, which is obviously about people who have committed crimes, but, at least as important, what will be done about people being forced by terrorists to leave their homes—people who are exiled and have been for many years?

Peter Hain: When we are ready to bring proposals for dealing with on-the-run suspects to the House, we will do so in the usual way, and we will have a chance to discuss them then. Exiling and punishments must stop. The IMC report showed that such activity had largely died out, but we are keeping a beady eye on it, because exiling is a pernicious practice, and if the IRA meets the terms of its commitments made on 28 July, exiling should stop, just as much as punishment beatings, targeting, intelligence gathering, and all the rest of it.

Lorely Burt: The Liberal Democrats of course welcome the decommissioning of IRA weapons, as was confirmed by the de Chastelain commission on 26 September, but does the Secretary of State recognise that the long delay has damaged the peace process? Does he agree that one way in which the IRA could help others to gain trust is by publicly stating that anyone who has been exiled from their home by the IRA during the troubles is free to return home safely and without retribution?

Peter Hain: I agree. The hon. Lady makes an important point on exiling. Yes, it would have been much better if decommissioning had occurred much earlier; if it had, there would be less suspicion within Northern Ireland, especially within Unionist communities, about the IRA's real intentions. However, the decommissioning and the statement made before it are an historic event. A year, or even two years ago, no one would have said that it would have been possible. It has now happened.

David Lidington: I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State's congratulations to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
	I welcome the act of decommissioning, but does the Secretary of State agree that over the years the Provisional IRA has accumulated enough money from bank robberies and other crimes to afford to re-arm itself, should it ever choose to do so, and that what we therefore need now is not the decommissioning of weapons and explosives only, but the decommissioning of the IRA's paramilitary organisation and its command structure, so that we can start to believe that this step by republicans is permanent and irreversible?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points and I welcome the fact that he too regards the decommissioning that occurred and the statement on 28 July promising an end to armed struggle—in the IRA's own words—as very significant, as the IMC statement made clear when it was published last week. It is interesting to quote from that statement. In respect of the Provisional IRA it says:
	"We have no evidence of training or recruitment after the 28 July statement. There are indications that the organisation's intelligence function remained active though its focus may be becoming more political. There has also been some identifying of drug dealers, though it is not clear for what purpose."
	So there is still something going on. That is why the statement in the report in January is very important.

David Lidington: But as the Secretary of State indicated, the IMC declared in its report that it was too early to tell whether the steps that republicans have taken are indeed permanent and irreversible.
	Will he explain why he has rushed to restore the Stormont and Westminster allowances to Sinn Fein, given that the IMC, which he prayed in aid, explicitly refused to make that recommendation? Should not Sinn Fein have to wait until it agrees to play by the same democratic rules that we expect of every party in Britain and every party on the island of Ireland?

Peter Hain: Sinn Fein has committed itself to maintaining and playing by those rules. We will have to judge whether that is fulfilled. I thought that it was the right decision. I am sure that if, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman had been standing in my shoes at this Dispatch Box, he would have taken the right decision. It is for the House to decide what it does about the Sinn Fein allowances, which were suspended earlier this year. However, I thought that it was right to recommend to the House that Sinn Fein's allowances in the Assembly be restored in view of the enormous historic progress that has been made, which, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman has welcomed.

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Shahid Malik: What assessment he has made of the level of public confidence in the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Shaun Woodward: Public confidence in the police in Northern Ireland is increasing. That is a tribute to the good work of the police, the Policing Board, the police ombudsman and the district policing partnerships.

Shahid Malik: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As a former Northern Ireland equality commissioner, I, too, welcome the decommissioning. From my experience, I am acutely aware of the importance of instilling confidence in the police across all communities in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that to achieve that we need significant improvements in crime reduction and crime detection?

Shaun Woodward: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House would congratulate the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the huge improvement in public confidence in recent years. Central to that are the improvements in crime reduction and crime detection. Crime in Northern Ireland is now at its lowest level in six years. Last year, recorded crime fell by nearly 8 per cent. on the previous year, and burglary and car crime fell by 18.3 per cent. and 23.7 per cent. respectively. The public's growing confidence in the PSNI is clearly justified.

Gregory Campbell: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his recent elevation.
	The Minister will be aware that part of the reason for the reduction in confidence in the police among the Unionist community is the legalised discrimination that has prevented 3,500 of them from joining, despite their being suitably qualified. Following the figures released last week, which show that if the merit principle had been applied 26 per cent. of recruits would have been Roman Catholic, will he establish the merit principle so that everyone can join the police in Northern Ireland on a non-discriminatory basis?

Shaun Woodward: Fifty-fifty is a temporary provision to ensure that we meet the target set by Patten that 30 per cent. of the PSNI should be Catholic. Parliament will, of course, review it in 2007. The vast majority of unsuccessful qualified candidates, Catholic and Protestant, are rejected because there are greater numbers of applicants than available places. We should celebrate the fact that so many young people now wish to pursue a career in the PSNI. It is also worth remarking that fewer than 2 per cent. of all non-Catholic applicants are rejected as a direct result of the 50:50 provisions.

Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that confidence in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland would be greatly enhanced if the Northern Ireland Office discouraged the creation of the so-called community restorative justice groups, which work outside the criminal justice system, and many of which are operated by Sinn Fein, as—I quote from it—
	"a viable alternative to the PSNI"?
	When will the Northern Ireland Office act against such bodies, which seek to usurp the normal role of the police in our community and which, in their execution—I use that word—in the local community, represent a gross infringement of personal human rights?

Shaun Woodward: Work is ongoing to produce guidelines that encapsulate safeguards, which will be discussed with members of community-based schemes and other interested parties in due course. The Government recognise that community restorative justice schemes have a part to play in helping to secure a normal society, but it is crucial that they work actively to uphold the human rights of all and that their members are prepared to work with statutory agencies, which, of course, means the police.

Lady Hermon: How would the Under-Secretary encourage the family of Lisa Dorrian to maintain confidence in the police investigation some eight months after her murder and without the recovery of her body?

Shaun Woodward: I pay tribute to Lisa's family for their brave determination. In doing that, it is appropriate to acknowledge the hon. Lady's work. She has worked tirelessly alongside the family to ensure that justice is done. I have met the family and I shall do so again shortly. The Chief Constable continues to take an interest in the case. He is ensuring that maximum resources are used and agrees with me and my hon. Friends that we should use forensic experts to help to find Lisa's remains. The investigation is ongoing and we can only hope that we find Lisa's remains before long and bring the perpetrators of her death to justice.

Adrian Bailey: Does the Under-Secretary agree that confidence in the Police Service of Northern Ireland will not be fully achieved until it fully represents all the communities in Northern Ireland? Will he join me in praising those members of the Catholic community who have joined the police service, despite the opposition of some of their political representatives? Will he reassure me that he will continue to work to ensure that all the political parties in Northern Ireland support a policy that will enable the force to be truly representative?

Shaun Woodward: I am tempted simply to say that I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. It is essential that there is wholehearted support throughout the community in Northern Ireland for the police and those members of the police who work tirelessly for everyone in the community.

Laurence Robertson: May I return to the restorative justice schemes? Will the Under-Secretary guarantee that the Government will not fund any of them without the full support of the police? The police should not only be consulted but participate fully in the schemes and be present at their implementation. Will he give that guarantee?

Shaun Woodward: We do not currently fund those schemes and we do not plan to do so.

Meg Hillier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Police Service of Northern Ireland sets a gold standard for ombudsman's services? Does he agree that, as the service gains support across the communities, it deserves the full support of all parties in Northern Ireland?

Shaun Woodward: The police ombudsman is an important part of the police service that is offered to the community in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that confidence in the ombudsman is at an all-time high. A recent survey found that 78 per cent. of respondents were confident that the police ombudsman dealt with complaints impartially and that 78 per cent. believed that the police ombudsman would help to ensure that the police do a good job. That is a good record and we shall work to improve it even further.

Paramilitary Organisations

Peter Robinson: What evidence he has received of the dismantling of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: The IRA has taken major steps this year. The 28 July statement and the independently verified decommissioning of the IRA's arsenal of weapons are historic. The IMC report published on 19 October stated that the initial signs are encouraging. It is high time that loyalist paramilitaries decommissioned too.

Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that my colleagues and I and, indeed, the whole community in Northern Ireland believe that it is time for all the paramilitary organisations, loyalist and republican, to shut down and disband? Does he also accept that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland fear that the Government are intent on repackaging the paramilitaries as community restorative justice officers or as part of some community support service? Will he assure us that we can see the back of paramilitaries rather than seeing them in a new guise? Will he give his interpretation of the statement that he read out earlier from the IMC report—a report that he flagrantly disregarded—about the IRA involving itself in political intelligence gathering?

Peter Hain: I agree with many of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about what the people of Northern Ireland want. They want a total end to all paramilitary and criminal activity. In respect of community restorative justice schemes and police community support officers, there is no question at all of paramilitaries going straight into becoming police community support officers—if we proceed with the plan to introduce them in Northern Ireland—or into running community restorative justice schemes. Both programmes will be established in accordance with the rule of law, and both—especially the recruiting of police community support officers—will be established according to the normal criteria for police recruitment. The hon. Gentleman's concerns are not well founded, and I am sure that he will come to support what we are trying to do.

Lembit �pik: May I add my congratulations to the almost right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)?
	The paramilitary organisations are known to smuggle large quantities of fuel across the border, yet paragraph 5.16 of the IMC report recommends the introduction of
	licensing regimes which would enable the closure of businesses which have been engaged in the illicit fuel trade, and would keep out of the industry all those shown to have been involved in that illicit trade.
	Has that recommendation been enacted, and, if so, how effective have the Government been in truly eliminating these rogue traders from the Northern Ireland fuel trade?

Peter Hain: This matter is a priority for the Organised Crime Task Force. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and we will look carefully at the IMC recommendations. He will be encouraged to know that fuel smuggling is already the subject of vigorous action, with 160 customs officers employed to break up the criminal gangs involved in oil fraud. The latest available figures show that deliveries of legitimate road fuel have increased for the third year running. The illicit market appears to be shrinking, but we shall continue to crack down on it.

William McCrea: Does the Minister understand that the Unionist population in Northern Ireland will accept nothing less than the dismantling and disbandment of the Provisional IRA?

Peter Hain: We all expect the promise made by the IRA on 28 Julyto close down all its paramilitary activity, end its armed campaign and stop criminal activityto be implemented in full. That is the position around which we should unite and on whose delivery we should insist.

Olympic Games

Jim Dobbin: What assessment he has made of the potential for Northern Ireland to benefit from London's hosting the 2012 Olympics.

David Hanson: The Government are determined to maximise the opportunities available to Northern Ireland as a result of London's successful bid for the Olympics. We will aim to increase participation and performance in sport, and to leave a legacy for sport, tourism and the economy on the back of London's success.

Jim Dobbin: Will my hon. Friend confirm his intention to encourage the whole of Northern IrelandI stress, the whole of Northern Irelandto take advantage of the opportunities that the 2012 games will offer? Will he describe the steps that he has taken so far to bring that about?

David Hanson: I certainly want to see the whole of Northern Ireland involved in support for the London Olympic games. So far, we have commissioned a report to explore the opportunities for Northern Ireland that will arise from London's successful bid. I want to see some events organised in Northern Ireland, and I want Northern Ireland to bid for training camps to support our athletes and those from other countries. I also want to see volunteers taking part, and to see excellence in competitors and a wider participation in sport, so that medals can come back from the London Olympics to Northern Ireland.

Iris Robinson: In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) stated:
	If Northern Ireland builds its planned national stadium, we will consider incorporating this venue as a location for the Olympic football competition.[Official Report, 24 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 67W.]
	Will the Minister be a little more positive and give the House a commitment that Northern Ireland will get that event if the stadium is built, rather than simply being considered for it?

David Hanson: I can certainly reassure the hon. Lady that we want to see events taking place in Northern Ireland as part of the Olympics in 2012. We shall have to look at the economics involved in the stadium that we are planning, and we shall have to get sport buy-in. If the stadium is successful, and I very much hope it will be, I hope that we shall be able to attract sports from the Olympic games to participate there. We will do all that we can to ensure that we achieve that aim.

Punishment Beatings

Ben Wallace: If he will make a statement on punishment beatings and kneecappings which have taken place in the Province since July.

Peter Hain: The most recently published information is set out in the seventh Independent Monitoring Commission report, which shows that shootings and assaults by paramilitaries are at a historic low. Even that low rate remains unacceptable, however, and the Government condemn all such attacks unreservedly.

Ben Wallace: The Secretary of State will know that it is extremely hard to carry out a kneecapping without the use of a handgun. Does he agree that any punishment beatings or kneecappings related to the IRA that have happened since July will directly contradict General de Chastelain's report of July, and that Sinn Fein-IRA will therefore have proved that they have not decommissioned or put out of use all their weapons?

Peter Hain: As the IMC report published last week made clear, the initial signs following the Provisional IRA's statement are encouraging in respect of all its activity, with a notable and sharp decline in all the activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Mark Lancaster: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 October.

Geoff Hoon: I have been asked to reply. As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Strasbourg today addressing the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently visiting Slovenia, Cyprus and Croatia, meeting Heads of Government as part of our presidency of the European Union.

Mark Lancaster: I have campaigned long and hard for i before einfrastructure before expansionfor Milton Keynes, a campaign which I am sure the Leader of the House supports. Assuming that he does, can he explain to my constituents why, over the past four years, this Government have taken 500 million via English Partnerships out of Milton Keynes and put just 200 million into Milton Keynesa net deficit of 300 million? Does he wonder why my city's infrastructure is crumbling, or do we need a new rule: i before e, except after B, Brown?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman agrees entirely with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has made it absolutely clear that it is important to get infrastructure right before we allow the expansion of our towns and citiesa lesson that we learned from the failures of the Conservative Government, who allowed unlimited expansion of those towns and cities without any regard for infrastructure.

Derek Wyatt: Given the number of computer scientists, biotechnologists and MBA graduates, and the quality of those students coming out of China and India, what assessments have we made of their systems and of whether we should implement any of their institutions here?

Geoff Hoon: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that we are extremely proud of our universities and higher education and the contribution that they make to our economy. Graduates from our universities are respected for their qualifications right around the world, and many students come to this country from India and China: in 200304, 41,550 came from China and 12,660 from India. We recognise the value that both those countries place on our education and, increasingly, our higher education. United Kingdom universities and colleges are working in both those countries, and I might mention the excellent example of Nottingham university, which has a campus in both China and Malaysia.

Chris Grayling: Since it was introduced in 2002, how many schools have been granted earned autonomy?

Geoff Hoon: What is important is that we continue to value the efforts that teachers and head teachers make in this country to protect the interests and education of the overwhelming majority of our children. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we are concerned with the majority, not simply with a privileged few.

Chris Grayling: Well, there's a surprise: the Leader of the House did not answer the question. Let me help him. Earned autonomy was a flagship policy which the Prime Minister promised would increase school freedomand what was the result? Since its introduction, not a single school has been granted earned autonomy.
	What about the Prime Minister's other flagship policy, the promise to give popular schools the capital with which to expand? How many schools have benefited from that?

Geoff Hoon: Again, the answer is clear. Since 1997 the Government have sought to reverse the disastrous education policies of our predecessors. Time and again we have invested in our schools, and provided extra teachers and support staff. That contrasts starkly with the way in which the Conservative Government ran down education.

Chris Grayling: Let me help the Leader of the House again. The Prime Minister promised that good schools would be given the money with which to expand. So far, only seven out of 21,000 schools have received that money. This week we have seen another set of promises on school reform from the Prime Minister, delivered in the teeth of opposition from the Cabinet. Why on earth should anyone believe that they will be delivered this time?
	Ministers have fallen out on education, and they have fallen out on smoking. Is it not the case that we have a Cabinet in disarray, and a Prime Minister who has lost the authority to lead the Cabinet?

Geoff Hoon: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills put the Government's position extremely well yesterday.[Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are scoffing at the vital issue of education for our children. This is what the Secretary of State saidOpposition Members should listen to it, and take note:
	Every child matters, and children have only one chance of a good school education. Our ambition is for every child to get that chance and to develop their talents.[Official Report, 25 October 2005; Vol. 438, c.169.)
	While Labour is committed to improving every child's opportunity, it is clear from the observations of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), and indeed from every contribution from Conservative Members, that Conservative Members are concerned only about protecting the rights of the privileged few.

Khalid Mahmood: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing regret for the loss of life that resulted from the tragic events in my constituency at the weekend? Will he join me in paying tribute to the emergency services, particularly the police, one of whom was shot? Luckily he survived, and is recovering in hospital. Will my right hon. Friend also pay tribute to all the members of the community who have not been easily taken in by a small criminal element who want to divide the community, but have not succeeded? Will he ensure that those people are supported, so that our communities in Birmingham, including those in my constituency, stay together? What those communities need is unity and consistency.

Geoff Hoon: I join my hon. Friend in expressing my condolences to the families who have suffered bereavements. I also pay tribute to the police and to those in the community, including my hon. Friend, who are working to resolve a difficult situation.
	We condemn the violence that took place at the weekend. Violent behaviour can never be seen as a legitimate form of protest. We welcome the positive way in which the police have worked with community representatives, and the positive statements made by representatives of all communities over the weekend.

David Heath: It is now three months since the horrific attacks on the London underground. What practical action has been taken to make the British transport system safer?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport have been working closely together to ensure that the already high standards of protection for people using public transport have been properly reviewed and considered, and that steps have been taken to ensure, as best we can, that there can be no repetition of that terrible disaster.

David Heath: What does the Prime Minister's own delivery unit say about the Government's approach to fighting terrorism?
	The strategy is immature, the forward planning is disjointed, and accountability for delivery is weak.
	Does the Leader of the House not realise that it is not possible to fight terrorism by simply introducing ever more draconian legislation? Is it not time we gave our police and security forces the extra resources and manpower that they need, and a properly constituted national border force? Would that not be rather better than wasting millions of pounds on an identity card scheme that will not stop a single terrorist?

Geoff Hoon: It might be rather better if, for a change, the Liberal Democrats lived in the real world and listened to the police, instead of commenting on leaked documents. The police have made it clear what they require: they would like to have a three-month period in which they can hold suspected terrorists before charge. The Liberal Democrats oppose that. The police have made it clear that they need a range of provisions in a new Terrorism Bill that would allow them to do their job properly and protect the people of this country. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats oppose that as well. The hon. Gentleman should go back to his constituents and ask them what they think about the efforts that we need to make to protect this country from terrorism.

Tom Harris: One in five men of working age in the city that we both represent, Mr. Speaker, is claiming incapacity benefitan unsustainable position for the long-term prosperity of individuals, families and Glasgow itself. Does my right hon. Friend accept that more radical measures than have previously been tried now need to be implemented if we are to move significant numbers of incapacity benefit claimants off benefit and into work?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking urgently at reforming our welfare system to ensure that those who deserve assistance receive it, and that those currently in receipt of incapacity benefit have opportunities and pathways back into work. That is central to the Government's determination to improve the level of welfare support, and to ensure that people have employment opportunities.

Adrian Sanders: The Leader of the House twice said earlier that the Government are concerned with the majority and not with the privileged few, so will they make it their policy to ensure that future test matches involving England are available on free-to-air TV channels, and not just to the privileged few who can afford pay-per-view?

Geoff Hoon: Curiously, the hon. Gentleman would normally argue that such matters are not for the Government but for others to resolve. Of course, that is the position so far as this matter is concerned, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has made it clear that it is subject to review, and that we will look at it again in the future.

Keith Vaz: On 10 November last year, the mother of the murdered Leicester schoolchild Stephan Pakheera told the Prime Minister that she believed that her son's killer was influenced by the video game Manhunt. Last week in Sheffield, a young schoolgirl, Shani Naylor, was seriously injured by bullies, and 31,000 children complained to ChildLine about bullying last year. Does the Leader of the House share my concern at the decision of Rockstar Games to publish a new game called Bully, in which players use their on-screen persona to kick and punch other schoolchildren? Will he ask the Prime Minister to refer this video game to the British Board of Film Classification, and if it does not make any changes, will the Government use their powers to ban this video game?

Geoff Hoon: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his excellent work in this difficult and sensitive area. We have certainly been working very closely with the video games industry to ensure that young people have access only to games that contain material appropriate for them, and that parents have information on what material a game contains. I understand that my hon. Friend has met the Minister with responsibility for creative industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), and that he will shortly be discussing this particular case with the Department for Education and Skills. It is important to remember, however, that the distributors have yet to put this game to the BBFC for consideration of an appropriate rating, so the precise nature of its contentdisturbing though it soundsand the degree to which it might be considered harmful to children is not yet fully known.

Chris Grayling: Can the Government guarantee energy supplies to business and domestic consumers this winter?

Geoff Hoon: Yes, they can, and we are looking at this matter very carefully. Obviously, that will depend on the nature of this winter's weather, but we are prepared for all contingencies.

Chris Grayling: Did the Leader of the House listen to the comments this morning of his own Energy Minister, who said that he has no idea how bad gas shortages this winter might be?

Geoff Hoon: I have made clear the Government's position. We are prepared, and we plan each winter for whatever contingencies arise. The situation is no different this winter; we will be ready.

Chris Grayling: So has the Leader of the House noted the comments of the director-general of the CBI? He said that
	if we have a cold winter, we are going to throw the switch, business will shut down, people will lose their jobs.
	Let us be absolutely clear: is the Leader of the House willing to give a clear and unequivocal guarantee that our businesses will have all the gas that they need this winter?

Geoff Hoon: I find remarkable the hon. Gentleman's coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that, given the disastrous period of Conservative Government when, frankly, energy was not a priority. They ran down the British coal industry without any regard whatsoever to alternatives. This Government plan and prepare, and we will plan and prepare for this winter.

Harry Cohen: This week has seen a successful visit of 11 Tibetan MPs in exile. In a fortnight's time, Premier Hu Jintau of ChinaPremier Hu rather than premier Hoonpays a visit. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the premier for more high-level talksperhaps even talks between Premier Hu and the Dalai Lamato try to resolve the present injustice to Tibetans?

Geoff Hoon: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very happy with my daytime job. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly discuss a wide range of issues with President Hu during the forthcoming state visit. The Prime Minister regularly raises human rights issues, including Tibet, when he meets Chinese leaders. The Government have encouraged the Chinese Government to continue their contact with the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama's representatives, in order to seek a lasting solution to the problem. We have told both sides that a meaningful dialogue is the best way to achieve a peaceful, sustainable and legitimate solution to the issue.

Eric Pickles: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that secrecy surrounding the Children Act 2004 is having a corrosive effect on justice and on social services departments? Surely it is possible to retain the anonymity of the child without the appalling restrictions on parents facing forced adoptions. They often face a greater degree of control than someone facing a criminal charge. In particular, they are unable to tell their employers why they are taking so much time off work, which places parents with learning difficulties at a peculiar disadvantage. Will the right hon. Gentleman look towards opening up the decisions of the courts and, following the suggestion of the Select Committee, find ways of making the operations of the Children Act much more open?

Geoff Hoon: Many years ago, I worked on cases of this sort and I appreciate the sensitivity of the matters involved and the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised this important issue. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellorand, indeed, the Department for Constitutional Affairsis looking at ways of opening up the process without in any way jeopardising the interests of those involved. It is a delicate and sensitive issue. I am aware of efforts to open up the process in the United States, which have been broadly welcomed by the parties concerned, and I know that the Lord Chancellor is studying what happens there very carefully.

Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend believe that action is long overdue in relation to the mass of advertising hoardings that now line our motorways? They despoil the landscape and distract drivers. Frankly, from the advertisers' point of view, if they do not distract, they do not work.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises an important issue and the Government take the matter very seriously indeed. I want to make it clear that the display of advertising hoardings alongside motorways and trunk roads without the consent of the local planning authority is a criminal offence and that local authorities have powers to bring prosecutions in such cases. Indeed, in June this year, we wrote to all local authorities to remind them of their powers and to urge them to take action to get the adverts removed. Moreover, we will consult on new control of advertisement regulations before the end of the year.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind the inflation-busting 19 per cent. increase in the regional rate announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland yesterday? That increase will have a devastating effect on lower and middle-income families and pensioners.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has just had the opportunity of raising that matter with Northern Ireland Ministers. I am certainly aware of extra investment in health and education across Northern Ireland. Obviously, such extra help requires paying for, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland takes these issues into account in making his difficult judgments.

Kerry McCarthy: In the light of yesterday's education White Paper, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the city academy in my constituency on its excellent set of GCSE results, which make it the most improved school in Bristol? Will he guarantee that all city academies and other types of school proposed in the White Paper will be required to operate a fair admissions policy?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The city academy in Bristol has helped to create a step change in educational achievement, with the proportion of students gaining five GCSEs at grades A to C rising from 33 per cent. in 2004 to more than 50 per cent. this year. However, I assure her that all schools are required to have regard to the statutory code of practice on admissions. Where complaints are made, the school adjudicator is charged with ensuring that admissions policies are in line with the code. That will continue to be the position under the proposals announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. She made that absolutely clear, and I repeat it today.

Robert Goodwill: Jamie Oliver has led the crusade for healthy food in our schools, but one does not have to look too far to see that schools are not the only place where obesity is a problem. Does the Leader of the House think that we should practise what we preach and encourage Members of Parliament to take more exercise and eat more sensibly?

Geoff Hoon: I have not seen the hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons gym at 7.15 am, but I look forward to doing so the next time I am there. Quite a few of my Front-Bench colleagues use that gym: we set a very good example and do not just talk about staying fit. Incidentally, Jamie Oliver has paid tribute to the Government for their efforts to promote better food in schools.

Laura Moffatt: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous debt carried by the Surrey and Sussex health care trust, which may threaten patient care in my constituency. What would he say to those hard-working campaigners trying to get facilities back in Crawley, given that they are dealing with a trust that has so much debt around its shoulders?

Geoff Hoon: As I have made absolutely clear when the question has been raised with me before, an enormous amount of extra spending is going into the national health service. It is vital that local authorities responsible for administering that extra money get their finances in order before any further and extra investment can be considered. However, I understand that a new management team is in place in the trust in my hon. Friend's constituency. A new capital programme worth 19 million has been established to improve services in her area, in addition to the 6.7 per cent. funding increase going to the primary care trust. Ultimately, although a solution has to be found locally, it is clear that the Government will help where they can to improve the financial position of PCTs.

Peter Bone: In June, the Prime Minister promised to toughen the law in respect of death caused by careless driving, and to bring forward proposals shortly. It is now nearly the end of October. When will the proposals be published?

Geoff Hoon: I do not know the answer to that question, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister writes to the hon. Gentleman. This is an important and difficult issue, and we must get it right.

Neil Turner: I have been invited to carry out Friday's topping-out ceremony for the 30 million refurbishment of Wigan and Leigh college, which provides excellent services and facilities for students in the Wigan area. However, it is one of the least well-funded colleges, and that causes particular difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council's agenda for change addresses that problem and distributes funding more equitably throughout the tertiary sector?

Geoff Hoon: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that significant capital project at Wigan and Leigh college. Half of that funding has been provided by the LSC and half by the college. That represents a larger contribution from the LSC than usual. In the coming weeks, my hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning will announce the Government's strategic direction for the learning and skills sector, including the funding package for the next two years. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to ensure fair funding for our education servicesomething else that the Conservatives failed to provide in their period in government. We have ensured fair funding for schools and colleges, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has committed us to that.

Susan Kramer: North Kingston is part of my constituency, and people who live there have long wanted a local, non-selective secondary school in their community. They have been denied by Treasury rules, because there are surplus places in schools an hour away. After yesterday's announcement and White Paper, they have been calling me because they are completely confused. May they have their school, and will the Treasury supply the money?

Geoff Hoon: As I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), that is why it is important to ensure both fair admissions and fair funding. We need the consistent approach that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has set out. We must ensure that parents have both the choice and the opportunity to send their children to the schools that they want. That has not always worked perfectly in the past, but we are going to address that issue because we want to ensure that the high standards that we have achieved since 1997 go on rising. That is our ambition, and I urge the hon. Lady to join us in it.

Jonathan R Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act of 1978which perhaps was not Labour's finest year for keeping the streets cleanhas now been replaced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, providing local authorities with the opportunity to get landowners to clear up their act or risk being fined? What level of scrutiny will the Government maintain to ensure that local authorities use those powers? People are fed up with looking at the eyesore of rubbish in their neighbourhood.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure not only that we pass legislation such as the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act as part of our wider drive to establish respect for our communities, but that local authorities use that legislation to deliver. Certainly, under the Act local authorities will have greater powers to tackle the fly-tipping that is costing them more than 44 million a year to clear up. Landowners and occupiers who have had their chance to clear away fly-tipped waste will now be able to recover their clearance costs, but we do need to ensure that local authorities use the legislation, put it into effect and deliver.

Andrew Selous: As the guardian of the rights of Members of this House, will the Leader of the House support an initiative, which has the backing of Members on both sides of the House, for an independent body to report every year to Parliament on carbon emissions?

Geoff Hoon: I have certainly seen the proposals in relation to carbon emissions and I have seen the way in which they could have an impact as far as the House authorities are concerned. It is something that I anticipate will be taken up when the House looks at these issues, and we take it very seriously, not only in relation to our responsibilities in Parliament, but obviously as part of our wider duty to the country.

James McGovern: Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's intention to implement in full as soon as possible the manifesto commitments contained in what is known as the Warwick agreement?

Geoff Hoon: The Warwick agreement has carried through a number of initiatives that we have worked on in partnership with trade unions, but may I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the Warwick agreement is a two-sided process? It is important that both parties carry it through.

Grant Shapps: Will the Leader of the House explain how it is that, after the boast of 100 days to save the NHS and the Prime Minister coming here week in, week out and boasting about the amount of additional money going to the NHS, in my constituency of Welwyn Hatfield it was announced this week that the QEII hospital is going to all but close? How does he square that circle?

Geoff Hoon: Very straightforwardly. I would compare the record of the Conservative Government whom he supported with what we have actually achieved in government. We have ensured that our hospitals are properly funded: 79,000 more nurses since 1997; 27,000 more doctors; 85 new hospital-building programmes in progress; more than 530,000 extra operations every single year; and waiting levels at their lowest since 1987. How can the hon. Member come to the House and possibly complain about the extra funding and the excellence in our health service compared with the appalling mess that we inherited in 1997?

Anne Begg: The Prime Minister has said that Labour is at its best when at its boldest. May I urge the Leader of the House to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to be bold, to follow Scotland's example, to stub out cigarettes and to ban smoking in all enclosed public spaces?

Geoff Hoon: I have seen no suggestion at all that my right hon. Friends are not bold when it comes to these issues. They have certainly been discussing this matter at great length and in great detail, because of course this is an important issue that affects everyone in the country, and it is important that we get the right balance between the needs of those who want to continue to smoke, as they are entitled to do in private, and the needs of the community, who clearly do not want to be affected by other people's harmful smoke. That is the balance that we are seeking to strike and I assure the House that as soon as we have struck that balance we shall inform the House accordingly.

Patrick Cormack: If the Government are serious about supplying the nation's energy needs and combating climate change, why do they not give a higher priority to nuclear energy?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his speech to the Labour party conference the importance that we attach to ensuring, as I made clear in the answer that I gave earlier, that the United Kingdom has sufficient energy provision, in the short and longer term, to meet the requirements of its businesses and its people. That remains our absolute priority.

Avian Influenza

Margaret Beckett: On Friday, my Department announced that we had identified a case of highly pathogenic avian influenza in birds held in quarantine. After further analysis by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, we announced on Sunday that the virus was H5N1. We now consider that the virus was found in samples taken from two birdsone Pionus parrot and one Mesia. The closest match is a strain identified in ducks in China earlier this year.
	There has been no reported occurrence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the United Kingdom since 1992. The premises in which this event occurred contained two consignments of exotic birds from Surinam and Taiwan. At this stage, we cannot say for sure where the virus originated, but our working hypothesis, taking account of the identification of the strain, is that the virus is most likely to have come via Taiwan. However, it is important to keep an open mind about other possible sources and we are doing exactly that.
	As the House knows, the birds in the quarantine premises were culled by officers from the local animal health office on Friday evening. All those at the premises who may have come into contact with diseased birds were given antiviral treatment to protect them against risk of infection.
	Since Friday, we have been investigating the sequence of events that led to the death of the birds. As we announced on Sunday, some birds had already died in quarantine before 16 October. Thirty-two of those birds were being held in a freezer. Initial tests, which have not yet been validated, identified that H5 is present in some of those birds. We have not yet established the full circumstances of those deaths. However, our standard instructions on deaths in quarantine state:
	When birds die during quarantine, their carcases must be placed by quarantine staff in a fridge or freezer until the Local Veterinary Inspector can collect them for transmission to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.
	That is, of course, where the tests are carried out.
	Our investigations will continue and we will of course bring our findings to the attention of the House as early as possible. Meanwhile, we are taking certain prudent steps to ensure that our protection against avian influenza is as secure as possible. First, I want to underline the fact that this incident has demonstrated both the threat posed by avian influenza and the controls that we have in place to meet that threat. The quarantine system provided the protection that it is intended to deliver. That is not a reason for complacency, but it is right that we should recognise the swift and effective action that was taken once the disease had been identified. It also means that our disease-free status on avian flu remains unaffected.
	The incident took place against a background of increasing reported outbreaks of avian influenza in wild birds. Since July, we have seen outbreaks first in an area of Russia and then in Romania and Turkey. There have been other confirmed and suspected cases in some of those countries and in Croatia. We are taking those developments very seriously, but I should perhaps stress that they are not in themselves a cause for undue alarm. Avian flu does not at present transmit easily to humans. But there is concern about the potential for avian influenza viruses to mutate into new forms that might directly affect humans.
	Such transmission has not yet happened and indeed may never happen, but there is good reason to be very vigilant against the establishment of avian flu. I stress that avian flu is a disease of birds and that we receive a number of reports of suspected cases in any normal year, and for the obvious reason that people are being particularly cautious we have received more than normal this year.
	Moreover, we in the UK and more generally in the European Union have worked to establish a good level of preparedness. Our contingency plan for avian flu was laid before Parliament in July. We regularly exercise the contingency arrangements nationally and locally, and our recent experience of managing a Newcastle disease outbreak demonstrated the fundamental soundness of those arrangements for dealing with a disease outbreak in birds, but we will continue to build on that good level of preparedness.
	In response to the specific incident that has occurred in quarantine, we issued instructions to the state veterinary service at the weekend that releases of birds from quarantine should now be subject to a case-by-case risk assessment. We understand that there are about 15 consignments of birds currently in quarantine. Each of those will be subjected to an individual veterinary risk assessment and referred to DEFRA headquarters before any decision to release is authorised.
	At the weekend, the chief veterinary officer and I ordered that a general review of our quarantine arrangements and procedures be undertaken. Pending the outcome of that review, we have called on the European Commission to propose an immediate temporary ban on imports of live birds into the EU while we collectively assess the risk that they pose. I am pleased to say that the Commission responded very positively to that call, and a ban lasting until 30 November was agreed in the relevant EU Standing Committee yesterday.
	At the same time, we are especially mindful of the potential threat posed by illegal imports. My Department already works closely with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs on the control of illegal imports of animals and animal products, and I have asked my officials immediately to address how we can increase our vigilance against the specific issue of illegal imports of live birds. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who has responsibility for rural affairs, landscape and biodiversity, will also take up the issue of illegal trade at an EU wildlife trade enforcement event tomorrow.
	We were already working actively with the Commission and other member states to tackle the wider threat of the introduction of avian influenza by migrating wildfowl and other routes. As a result of that work, I expect to bring before the House within the coming days sensible and measured regulations that will assist us in reducing the risk of disease and strengthening our ability to control an outbreak. Those regulations will implement the announcement that we made last week about establishing a register of all commercial poultry producers in the country. As we said then, we shall start that process of registration next month.
	For non-commercial poultry keepers, we have produced a simple, clear and, I hope, effective guide to biosecurity, and we are actively distributing that guide through lobby groups, veterinary networks, hobby magazines and other available channels. We have also decided, with fellow member states, that in the present circumstances it is desirable to prohibit bird fairs, markets and shows, except where a risk assessment shows that they can be safely conducted. We are in full discussion of that proposal with potentially affected stakeholders.
	Ornithological groups are also very important stakeholders for us, and earlier this month we reached an agreement with them jointly to monitor wild birds. That is, of course, in addition to our existing annual programme of monitoring domestic poultry for avian influenza that is already under way.
	The regulations that we will bring before Parliament will give legal effect to the provisions in recent legislation that enable us to instruct poultry keepers to keep their birds indoors, and we are urgently discussing that provision with stakeholders.
	In conclusion, I recognise that the public are rightly concerned about avian flu. I am pleased that our quarantine rules worked to identify and eradicate the immediate risk in this incident, but because we are not complacent we are taking the steps that I have indicated both to review and strengthen our protection against legal and illegal imports of captive wild birds, and in the next few days we will introduce the new regulations that I have described.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making available an early copy of her statement and for the technical briefing that her officials provided us with yesterday. I welcome unreservedly the ban on commercial live bird imports that she has announced today, but I have some questions about the past and some questions about the future. I shall start with the past.
	First, why did the Secretary of State and her Ministers for six months strenuously resist EU proposals to impose a ban on commercial wild bird imports? Secondly, in her statement she admitted that despite press briefings over the weekend she does not currently know whether the infected bird was a parrot, whether it came from Surinam or whether it was infected by a bird from Taiwan. This is horribly reminiscent of the confusion over sheep and cattle material for which she apologised to the House in 2001. Can she explain how she and her Ministers have for many months presided over quarantine procedures so lax that birds from different continents are kept together, test samples are pooled and there is no clarity in her Department about the true implication of the tests?
	Thirdly, when we surveyed poultry concerns we discovered that fewer than half could recall proactive steps by the Department or any other intermediary body to inform them fully about avian flu. Why, after months of reports about the problem, have the Secretary of State and her Ministers failed to take such proactive steps to inform the poultry sector?
	I turn to the future. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure the proper separation of birds still in quarantine, to which she referred, and to provide proper polymerase chain reaction testing for poultry flocks? Can she guarantee that the compensation paid to farmers for slaughtered flocks will be sufficiently generous to give incentives for full reporting? How will controls at ports of entry be increased to prevent the smuggling of wild birds once the ban is in place? How will commercial imports be distinguished from pet imports, which are merely being restricted? Who within her Department will be accountable for ensuring that any outbreak in the poultry flock is fully and immediately contained?
	In the light of past serious failures and the confusion and inactivity surrounding recent events, the House has a right to an assurance from the Secretary of State that from now on it will no longer be business as usual. We do not want to see her Department once again rendered impotent in the face of disaster and the Army brought in to clear up the mess.

Margaret Beckett: Well, no need to urge the public not to be hysterical.
	It is not the case that for six months we strenuously resisted such a ban. I always believe in being charitable to the Opposition, so I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may have a mistaken impression from things that he heard on the radio. The facts are that as long ago as last March a request was made to the European Commission via the Belgian Ministernot, by the way, on the grounds of anything to do with animal disease or avian flu but on the grounds of the welfare of wild birdsfrom those who have long and legitimately campaigned on those matters. Ministers were not unsympathetic. We sought advice, but the advice was that such a move was not justified. That was also the view of the Commission. The matter was discussed in Council. The Commission argued strongly that on welfare grounds it was a disproportionate response. I repeat that it was not a disease issue at that stage. It is not the case, as has been reported, that only the UK did not share that view. That is wholly untrue. Indeed a moment's thought would make people realise that it was untrue because if only the UK had taken that stance, it would have gone through. The Commission took the view that it was not required, and several member states, of which we were one, supported the Commission. There is thus no truth in the suggestion that we strenuously resisted such a move.

Oliver Letwin: So you did strenuously resist?

Margaret Beckett: We did not resist at all. We said that we felt it was not justified at that time; it was not an animal disease requirement, or concern.
	In September I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to review our contingency plan and our contingency arrangements. Following that, a decision was made to draft a letter to the Commission asking for such a ban. In fact, before the dead parrot ever hove into view over the horizon the Government had already decided to approach the Commission to ask it to reconsider the position with regard to a ban. As for the question of separation, the pooling of test samples is a standard procedure, as I said in my statement, and has been for many years. Obviously the whole question of whether birds are separated in different places and in quarantine, and of whether test samples are pooled, which are not at present addressed in the rules, will be considered in the review that we will undertake. It is, however, absolutely clear what the procedures were. We must consider two separate issues: whether the present events occurred because procedures were not followed, or whether they happened because of something to do with the procedures, which we should be refining in any event. That is the exact issue that we are considering.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about his famous survey. I understand that there are 70,000 or so keepers of poultry, who are, of course, probably the ones with relatively large numbers of birds about whom we know. He seems to be under the impression that those people should have been contacted by my Department. I thought that he was in favour of reducing the number of bureaucrats. I am not quite sure how many staff he wants the Department to have if it is to contact 70,000 poultry keepers personally. May I remind the House that it has been the case for a considerable time that poultry keepers are under an obligation to monitor their birds and report signs of illness? They must, as a condition of keeping those birds, know what to do about serious and notifiable avian diseases. These are notifiable diseases.

James Paice: That is not the point.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is not the point, but with respect it is precisely the point. Poultry owners and keepers are under such an obligation, and that obligation includes operating adequate biosecurity.
	As for the question of keepers of small numbers of birdsperhaps almost pet birdsthe House will know that advice was issued for them a few days ago. We are doing everything that we can through advertisements and the industry associations to ensure that it is understood.
	I am conscious that you do not like people at the Dispatch Box to go on for too long, Mr. Speaker, but I am also conscious that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked me at least eight questions, of which I have so far answered only three. May I just quickly

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman could get a letter from the Secretary of State.

Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that the Government are making a statement today and urge the Secretary of State to keep the House informed about future developments. Does she agree that it is important to strike a balance between adopting sensible precautions and not unnecessarily alarming the public or damaging the farming industry? Does she thus share my disquiet about the Edwina Currie-type advice from the European Food Safety Authority on the consumption of eggs and poultry? Will she confirm that there is no greater threat from eating poultry today than there was last week, last month, or last year?
	There are serious questions about the quarantine arrangements in place at both the specific establishment in Essex and more widely. The Secretary of State said in her statement that the quarantine system worked, which was true in the sense that the disease was identified while the bird was still held, but cross-contamination happened. Will she clearly state whether she believes that the regulations in place were broken, or whether they were simply inadequate? The way in which birds were kept must be addressed. Do the regulations currently allow birds of different species to be mixed, which would seem to be a totally inadequate way of dealing with biosecurity?
	Has the Secretary of State seen the report in many papers that birds at the centre in question are
	kept in excrement-covered cages?
	Is there any truth in that suggestion? Does she share my disquiet that if the papers are accuratethe matter was widely reported in several national paperssuch an important biosecurity centre is apparently being run by an individual who has been jailed for offences relating to the importation of wild birds? Should there not be greater controls on who is permitted to run quarantined establishments? Will she make the examination of quarantine arrangements part of her remit?
	I welcome the decision to introduce an immediate ban on the wild bird trade and thus urge her, as I did her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), last Thursday, to pay particular attention to the illegal trade, which will increase as a consequence. Will she especially examine trade on the internet, which causes a major problem in the wild bird trade? Will she explain why I was told that a ban on bird fairs was not necessary when I suggested it to her colleague on Thursday, although she announced today that such a ban will be introduced?
	Finally, can the Secretary of State comment on suggestions in the newspapers that her Department is preparing, as a necessary precaution, for a mass cull of poultry? What will its parameters be, and could the influenza H5 vaccine be used instead?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to some of his questions. For example, as I said a few moments ago, whether the regulations were observed and whether the rules are adequate are separate issues, and we are pursuing both of them. At present, different species can be mixed, and he is right to assume that that is exactly the kind of issue that the review of general rules will consider. As for where the birds were kept and who was keeping them, there is nothing that I can say about any individual except that the press reports include observations about individuals who are said to have committed offences, but those offences are not reported to relate to the keeping of birds per se. What have been reported are revenue offences.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about international trade. Of course, we are looking at that in the review and, indeed, the issue of bird fairs. He asked me about the premises that have been reported. I understand that published descriptions of various places do not relate to quarantine facilities. It is perfectly legitimate to make comments and, indeed, adverse comments if that is how people feel about the standard of facilities where birds are housed, but such comments do not, as far as I am aware, relate to quarantine facilities. I accept, however, that the impression is sometimes given that they do.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a mass cull and vaccination. We are looking at the issue of having to cull a number of birds, as we did in July to achieve the speedy eradication of Newcastle disease. We are also looking at the question of whether there is a potential for vaccine, but no authorised vaccine is available at present. If a suitable vaccine were used, birds would have to be vaccinated twice with a minimum three-week separation period. Poultry would be dead by then anyway, because there is a seven-week lifespan. Of course, we will look again at vaccination, but it is not the immediate remedy that people may hope for.

Gavin Strang: The whole House should welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, including her confirmation that consideration is being given to a requirement that commercial poultry production take place indoors. Such a policy would require premature slaughter, would involve significant commercial and public cost, and would doubtless be based on the best veterinary and medical advice available to the Government. However, if we have to go down that road, does she agree that it would make sense for the Republic of Ireland to do so as well? If the position has to be decided at European level, it may be best to do so. Which EU member states have already implemented such a policy?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot give my right hon. Friend a great deal of information, because the position is changing. It is for member states to make a risk assessment, not merely in their country but in its regions. Yesterday, or perhaps this morning, France advised poultry keepers in coastal areas and another area in the eastern region of France to take their poultry indoors, but that does not apply to the whole country. The issue of whether or not there are circumstances in the UK in which we would advise people to take such a step is something that we keep under review, as does every member state. As I said, member states that are closer to the wildfowl outbreaks that have been reported have taken action in some parts of their territory.

Eric Pickles: Unless I have been seriously misled, the outbreak occurred in my constituency, and there are lessons to be learned from the way in which it was handled. The right hon. Lady is rightly cautious about the company involved and the conviction for a serious fraud that resulted in a custodial sentence. However, one of my constituents put it to me that quarantine is our first line of defence. My constituents need to be able put their trust in people who are handling that quarantine, and they need to be confident that those individuals will obey the law. Health authorities have issued helpful guidance, but my own primary care trust was not told that the outbreak was less than five miles from its headquarters. We do not have anything to fear from disclosure, and the easiest way to avoid panic is to tell people the truth as quickly as possible.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. Frankly, I do not have any idea whether the facility is within his constituency because I do not know where his constituency boundaries are. Nevertheless, in whatever constituency such an event occurs, he makes a valid and legitimate point and his constituents' questions are relevant. When people wish to set up a quarantine facility it is inspected in advance to check that it is adequate. When there are animals in the facility, there are regular inspections and monitoring by local veterinary inspectors and so on. The hon. Gentleman's constituents can be assured that such precautions are in place. They can also be assured that the review will look at whether those precautions are adequate and whether, for example, we should continue to permit the mixing of birds from different continents. I cannot comment on the position of his local primary care trust, but I repeat that the case was detected in a secure facility. Although there is proper concern about the long-term implications for human health of the avian virus we are not in circumstances where its feared consequences are apparent.

Mark Durkan: May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on initiatives and interventions, as well as her Department's readiness to make a further response? Has the Department duly engaged with the relevant devolved Administrations and the not-so-devolved Administration in Northern Ireland? Will she assure us that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland and its Minister will not be restricted or restrained from taking more stringent or specific action, particularly if they wish to do so in concert with the authorities in the Irish Republic?

Margaret Beckett: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in contact with the devolved Administrations, who have offered helpful co-operation. They will consider whether there is any further contribution that they wish to make to the assessment and handling of such cases.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State has just announced a review of the quarantine procedures, yet in her statement she said that measures to deal with avian influenza were fundamentally sound. If that was the case according to the original analysis, why, following the first testing of the system, does it have to be reviewed? As for scenario-playing, how many times has she played the scenario of what to do, and what lessons has she learned from that exercise?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman asks about the scenarios. We had what one might call a live scenario involving Newcastle disease in the summer, as I mentioned earlier. He asks why the review. The position is changing. The procedures are basically soundthey worked in eradicating the outbreak of Newcastle disease at the beginningbut with regard to avian flu, it is a moving picture. We are seeing developments in what is thought to be the epidemiological understanding of the spread of that virus in wild birds, so we thought it right to reassess what we believe to be potentially a new situation, and certainly an evolving situation. He and his Committee, as well as the House, would be critical of us if we were not saying that, in the light of the event that has occurred, we should reassess not only the event itself, but whether there are issues about our quarantine rules that we ought to reconsider, because it is a changing situation.

Peter Soulsby: My right hon. Friend will agree that there have been some astonishing scare stories and headlines in the press about avian influenza. She would probably also agree that, as a result, there has been widespread fear and public confusion, in about equal measure, about these issues. Does she agree that, although such scare stories might sell newspapers, it is vital that her Department undertake a concerted and vigorous public education effort to increase public understanding of avian influenza and to draw clear distinctions between that and potential pandemic influenza among humansrelated but very different issues? The public need to understand both those relationships and those differences.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the public get a clearer idea of the significance of avian flu and the distinction. We are making information available in the House for all MembersI hope it is already here, but if not, it soon will bewith an indication of all the steps we are taking. I will not bore the House with all of it, but guidance on biosecurity and surveillance has gone out to a range of organisations and to vets. Advertisements have been placed in trade publications and so on, and there is the leaflet that we issued a few days ago for individual poultry keepers. I take my hon. Friend's point that all these measures are aimed at those who have a particular interest in the trade or those who are poultry keepers. It is important for all of us to do everything we can to get across information to the general public.
	I was a little alarmed at an exchange that I heard a few days ago, in which the prime question that seemed to spring to the mind of the questioner was, Is there someone who is to blame for this? Let us bear it in mind that the situation is of concern and the Government are taking steps to deal with it, but it is important that the public understand that what we are seeing is something of a development in avian influenza that we do not in any sense take lightly and are considering very seriously, but which is more of a risk to birds than it is to people.

David Simpson: The Minister will appreciate that the poultry industry right across the United Kingdom has grown dramatically over the past five to 10 years, so can she assure the House that she will ensure that there is adequate veterinary supervision not only at the rearing stage but in the production and manufacturing process, and that if something were to happen, the Government are prepared with extra veterinary staff?

Margaret Beckett: I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that it is part of our overall contingency plan, which he will find on my Department's website and which we published in the House in July, that there are arrangements, should they be requiredlet us hope they never areto supplement the veterinary facilities that are available now with other outside help.

John Greenway: The proposed ban on live poultry sales is prudent and understandable, but will cause a great deal of difficulty for the poultry industry at this critical time of the year. What advice will her Department give to the commercial poultry trade about movement of poultry, which will become critical if, as she suggests, it may be necessary to move all poultry indoors? Many producers do not have the accommodation that they require. On a different matter, what help is being given to those eastern European and central Asian countries where bird flu is more endemic and where the problem originates?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what advice will be given, as that is a matter not for me but for the veterinary and scientific experts. I can assure him that we are in touch with people who are engaged in wild bird fairs and so on, and with the poultry industry. He made a valuable point about the scale of the facilities available. That is exactly the kind of thing that is being discussed. I assure him that my Department and our officials will do everything we can to maintain the balance of proper protection and proper security precautions with understanding for the commercial necessity. I can also tell him that there is a great deal of contact with, as he rightly says, countries where disease is more endemic. I believe I am right in saying that various expert scientific advisers, not from my Department but more independently and outside, are in contact with such countries and there is discussion with them to try to help them deal with some of the issues.

Hywel Williams: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that, should a cull be required, we are adequately prepared for the disposal of carcases? This is not a party political or polemical point. The experience in rural and remote north-west Wales relating to the introduction of the fallen stock scheme does not inspire confidence within the agricultural industry.

Margaret Beckett: I can reassure the House that that is one of the issues that is part of our contingency plan. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about some of the early handling of the fallen stock scheme, because some concern was expressed. Although we may be talking about large numbers if a commercial flock, for example, were affected, we are not talking about animals or birds of quite the same size.

Mark Pritchard: Are not the Government in danger of being seen as gravely complacent on the matter, given that from that very Dispatch Box yesterday we heard Ministers say that they would commit 17 million of taxpayers' money to promote electoral reform, yet all we have heard about today is a few leaflets being sent out? Is the Secretary of State not in danger of sending out a very weak message when the country needs a strong one?

Margaret Beckett: No. Of course there is always a danger in life and in government of being accused, particularly by people who want to make the accusation whether or not it is valid, of being complacent or of not doing enough, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that those who are affected by the precautions on which my Department is insisting feel that that is the case.

Ian Paisley: I am sure the Minister will agree that fears, especially unfounded fears, need to be allayed and that openness is what we need in the matter. I welcome her statement today, as far as it goes. Have orders been issued in the civil service that jabs should be taken by all civil servants? My information is that in Northern Ireland that has happened, which has led people to ask whether there will be favouritism if we are faced with a pandemic. That fear needs to be allayed.

Margaret Beckett: No, there is no recommendation that all civil servants should be vaccinated. Indeed, we do not have an appropriate vaccine at present, because nobody knows what vaccine would be needed, since we do not know what virus we might be dealing with. It is certainly the case, however, that we have advised those who are poultry keepers that they should consider both their own biosecurity and their own precautions. That is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about openness, reminding me that I did not address that when the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised it. We must keep a balance between what will help us to maintain proper precautions and biosecurity, and clarity of information. It has never been the practice of my Department to be explicit about precisely where a disease outbreak might have taken place, because one does not want a lot of people tramping over a potential disease site.

Gregory Barker: May I press the Minister on the question of a vaccine, particularly for those working in the poultry industry? I appreciate that there is some uncertainty because of the science around a vaccine, but can she be clearer about under what circumstances a vaccine would be made available to employees in the poultry industry, and what steps she is taking to ensure that, were that deemed necessary and appropriate, it is readily available.

Margaret Beckett: It is part of our contingency plan that, if there were an outbreak, consideration would have to be given to that and whether there is an appropriate vaccine in all the circumstances is kept under review. One of the first things that we did when we heard about the event in secure quarantine was to ensure that the work force dealing with that facility was advised to take antiviral measures.

Roger Williams: With other hon. Members, I am concerned about the management of the quarantine centre in Essex and general quarantine practice, particularly that birds that died during the quarantine period were put into cold storage, waiting for a convenient time for a veterinary investigation to take place. Birds could have been released from quarantine, showing no symptoms but incubating the disease that they caught from the birds that died. Surely birds that die during quarantine should be investigated immediately.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, so let me try to make matters as clear as possible. I take his point about the investigation on the birds being carried out straight away, but it is standard procedure, and has been for many years, that they should be frozen until examination. However, there has been some misinformation on the point. If, as happened in the quarantine facility that we are discussing, one set of birds is in quarantine and another set of birds is brought in, the quarantine period for the whole lot restarts when the second set arrives, and no birds are released until that quarantine period has expired. In addition, apart from that extended quarantine period, if there are any outstanding teststests are carried out on birds that die in quarantinethe birds are still not released until the results of those outstanding tests are confirmed. All of that, and whether it is a good thing to pool the samples and so on, will be considered in our review of how our quarantine facilities operate. It is understandable because it is not always easy to follow matters through, but there has been quite a lot of reporting about the birds having been released early. No, they were not near the end of their quarantine period, and while tests were outstandingwhich there would be if there were dead birdsthey would not have been released until the test results were known.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State said that bird shows will be banned until further notice, but she knows that we are fortunate in having a large number of bird sanctuaries, zoos and bird exhibits in botanical gardens. How will such organisations be affected by the ban and can she assure me that, in the event of an outbreak or a decision to close the exhibits, any compensation scheme would cover those organisations and the loss of revenue to them?

Margaret Beckett: It is my understanding that, at present, birds in zoos and so on are not affected, but we are in discussion with stakeholders from a range of facilities with a range of concerns and the hon. Lady has identified a new one. I am grateful to her for raising the issue of compensation because her right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked about that and I did not get round to the answer. Compensation is not available in the circumstances that she describes. With regard to an incident of disease where some birds die but others are not affected, compensation is available only for birds that do not have the disease. That is an incentive to keep birds healthy and to have strong biosecurity, because there would not be compensation for birds that get a disease and have to be culled.

Control of Internet Access (Child Pornography)

Margaret Moran: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require internet service providers and other commercial organisations providing access to the internet to declare whether or not they have taken steps to prevent access to web sites containing indecent images of children; and for connected purposes.
	The effect of the Bill is to require every internet service provider to declare in its company's annual reports and on its corporate website whether it is actively pursuing measures intended to prevent its customers from obtaining access to known child pornography websites. The Bill would not compel ISPs to take such measures, but would require them only to say whether they are taking such measures.
	Let us not be under any illusion. The situation surrounding internet child pornography is appalling. Just two years ago, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children estimated that 20,000 new images of child pornography go online every week20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape every single week. There are now hundreds of pay-per-view child pornography sites and thousands of free sites filled with images that would make most people physically sick.
	Operation Ore, the massive police investigation into child internet pornography, identified over 7,000 people in the UK, including judges, doctors and teachers, who used their credit cards to download images of children being abused or even killed for their gratification. Police believe that that is the tip of the iceberg. Those who download such images say that they have committed no crime, but every single vile picture that includes babies and children being raped and tortured has destroyed an innocent life. Through the internet, criminal gangs are making money out of this misery. That has gone unchallenged for too long and the time has come to right this wrong.
	Until recently, the technological challenges to solving all or part of the problem have been formidable. Yet thanks to recent advances, the end of child pornography on the net is now in sight. Over a year ago, BT proved conclusively that the technology now exists to allow ISPs to block access to child pornography on the internet. This effective filtering system, called Cleanfeed, has been live for over 18 months, and allows the user to enjoy the full advantages of the internet minus illegal websites. By blocking the connection between the site and the user, child pornography becomes inaccessible. Instantly, supply will be cut off from demand and the illegal act of producing child pornography will become unprofitable.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) asked the Prime Minister about BT's Cleanfeed last July, he answered positively, welcoming her efforts and BT's efforts and stating his intention to act on the issue by meeting the ISPs. I am pleased to be part of a Government who have taken such a strong stance against child pornography. By increasing the maximum penalties for making, distributing and showing indecent photographs of children, as well as investing in high-tech crime fighting solutions, the Government have repeatedly shown that they are committed to tackling this repugnant crime.
	While I commend the Government on their approach in trying to prevent access to these sites, we need more urgency in ensuring that ISPs act now. I commend those ISPs that have used the available technology to block such sites. AOL, BT, Yahoo and Vodafone are models of good corporate citizenship. However, too many ISPspossibly as many as 20 per cent.have not responded to the challenge and still do very little to block child pornography sites. For every day that they delay, more children are being abused, so the Bill is a wake-up call to them. It is not designed to force ISPs to adopt the technology or tell us what technology they use. We want them only to state whether or not they have taken the simple and effective steps necessary to block child pornography
	The Bill is intended primarily as a public accountability mechanism. All UK companies have to make a range of declarations in their annual reportsfor example, on health and safety issues or carbon emissions. From that perspective, this is not a revolutionary idea. Although I am interested in a company's policies on global warming, if it happens to be an ISP, there is at least one other aspect of its activities that is more immediately relevant and of interestwhat it is doing to end the terrible trade in illegal child sex abuse images.
	If an ISP had good reason for not doing everything that it reasonably could to block access to illegal child abuse images, the Bill would not compel it to change its policies. I am sure that the ISP concerned would stand ready to explain its stance to its customers. Nevertheless, I wonder how many company directors or shareholders would be happy at the thought that they are required to declare publicly that they are doing nothing to stop child sex abuse images reaching their customers. The public, parents and policy makers are all entitled to know who is trying to kill off the trade in illegal child abuse images and who is not.
	Some have argued that this is about the freedom of the net. The Bill is not a pretext for state censorship of the net, but child abuse and rape are illegal. As the head of the NSPCC's specialist investigation service says,
	we all have a duty to these children and to fail to protect them is a crime in itself.
	Providing this information would enable the public to make reasoned choices about which internet service providers to use.
	The Bill is not a magic button to eradicate child pornography, but the technology exists to limit access, and it is effective. Users have a right to know whether it is being used so that they can make informed choices. I believe that peer pressure and parent power can prevail. BT, the NSPCC, NCH and others believe that child abuse can be severely reduced, but we have to it make happen. It is our responsibility and we need to act now. This is a wake-up call to the slow learners in the ISP community. We will continue to put pressure on them and to name and shame as necessary. I, and many hon. Friends from other parties, stand ready to press for regulation if action is not taken.
	The prize on offer is a great one. If people cannot reach the websites to buy child sex abuse images, the gangsters who are behind the trade will stop systematically arranging for children to be raped purely so they can photograph or film it in order to get new supplies for sale. These guys are only in it for the money that they get by exploiting our children. We need to deprive them of that shop window, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Margaret Moran, Anne Snelgrove, Helen Goodman, Kitty Ussher, Sandra Gidley, Ian Stewart, Judy Mallaber, Lynda Waltho, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Paul Burstow, Sir George Young and Martin Salter.

Control of Internet Access (Child Pornography)

Margaret Moran accordingly presented a Bill to require internet service providers and other commercial organisations providing access to the internet to declare whether or not they have taken steps to prevent access to web sites containing indecent images of children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 67].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Terrorism Bill

[Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 11th October, HC 515-i, on the Draft Terrorism Bill.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill seeks to place our counter-terrorist legislation on a permanent and secure basis. I should say at the outset that I am well aware that Members on both sides of the House have doubts about two particular aspects of the Bill: first, the definitions of terrorism and glorification and how we describe them; and, secondly, the length of time that somebody may be detained before charge, and proposed amendments in that respect. I will come to those issues later in my speech, but I should say now that I am ready to give way to debate them at the relevant time today, although of course the major debates will take place in Committee and on Report on the Floor of the House.
	The Government have said all along that in a matter as important as this legislation we want to proceed on the basis of consensus. In that spirit, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), and to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others, for the constructive tone that they adopted over the summer.
	I made a commitment to bring forward further counter-terrorism legislation earlier this year during the passage of the Bill that became the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Preparations for the Bill were already well under way in early July this year, and I set out a list of measures to the Opposition spokespeople on 15 July. I am grateful to them both for the constructive response that they were able to give. I also made it clear that we were consulting the police and intelligence agencies in the light of the terrorist attacks and would consider whether additional measures were required. On that basis, I sent out a draft Bill to the Opposition and to Committee Chairs on 15 September.
	In the light of the helpful comments that we received from a variety of sources, on 6 October I set out some revised proposals in respect of the offence of glorification. On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary published a paper setting out anti-terrorism laws in other countries, which I hope will help to inform today's debate. In the same spirit, through the usual channels we agreed a substantial amount of time to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report on the Floor of the House.
	That is how we reached the stage that we are at today. In addressing the central issue that we face, I must start from the fundamental premise that there is a serious terrorist threat that has to be addressed. From New York, Nairobi, Sharm el-Sheik, Istanbul, two offences in Balione recentlyMadrid, and our own events in London this July, we know of the existence of that terrorist threat. As we legislate to address it, we must do so on the basis, first, of clarifying the values and society that we are seeking to defend, and, secondly, of identifying the threat with which we have to deal.
	Of all the societies throughout the world, perhaps that of the United Kingdom is the society that laid the basis for the values that we here seek to defend: valuing and building free speech and freedom of expression, including a free media; believing in a society that respects all faiths, races and beliefs; believing in a society founded on the rule of law; wanting every citizen to have a democratic stake in our society; valuing the free economy, which has built prosperity, including high-quality public services on which we all depend; and valuing the fact that women can play a full role in our society. We all know that our society, based on those values, will continue to evolve and develop. We also know that we can all point to aspects of our society that fall short of those aspirations. However, people on all sides of politics have struggled over the centuries to achieve the values that we celebrate today.
	The society that we have built, with the values that it embodies, is not slight nor passing but deeply rooted and profound. I emphasise that those values are embraced by the overwhelming majority of our citizens, from whatever faith group or minority ethnic group they come. Indeed, most of those who migrated to our country did so precisely because they wanted to embrace the values that I just set out. Our society is characterised by common values but diverse backgrounds, faiths and lifestyles. It has been a stunningly successful model of integration, despite regular challenges.
	If one compares the United Kingdom of the 1950s, before significant migration took place, with the United Kingdom of today, one sees that in many key parts of life and endeavourour businesses, our design, our literature, our food; there are too many to namethe vibrancy of diversity has powered creativity and economic success. I emphasise again, however, that that has always happened within the framework of our common democratic values.

John Baron: Some aspects of the Bill create further concerns that the Government are too willing to accept recommendations from the security forces without adequately scrutinising them. Control orders and evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are two examples of that. Will the Home Secretary make it clear why he believes that the detention period without charge should be extended to 90 days?

Charles Clarke: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I began, but I said then that I would deal specifically with the 90-day point when I reached that part of my speech. I shall do that.

Alan Beith: The Home Secretary is rightly dealing with the theme of values. What about the value to which Lord Carlile referred when he criticised the excessive use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000? He described its use as a substantial encroachment into the reasonable expectation of the public at large that they would face police intervention in their lives only if there was a reasonable suspicion that they would commit a crime. Is not that value threatened if events such as those at the Labour party conference or the instance of the person who was told that she could not walk on a cycle path occur?

Charles Clarke: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman adopts that tone. However, he is right to cite Lord Carlile because his report is the basis on which we deal with legislation on all such matters. We will continue to pay serious attention to his comments on section 44 and other aspects of our proposals because it is his role to report to Parliament and to the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member.
	Our type of democratic society has been created over many years and all parts of our community embrace and support it. I argue even more strongly that the ambition for democratic society has driven enormous political and social change in the past 30 years throughout the world. In those 30 years, fascist or militaristic rule in Greece, Spain and Portugal in southern Europe has been succeeded by democracy; apartheid South Africa has been succeeded by democracy; colonialist southern Africa has been replaced by democracy; the totalitarian states of central and eastern Europe have been succeeded by democracy; Latin and central American dictatorship has been replaced by democracy, and, even in south-east Asia, democracy has replaced dictatorship. Democracy and the need to protect our democracy is at the heart of the Bill.
	I understand perfectly well that, in each of those parts of the world, massive problems remain. However, those enormous changes, which have occurred across the planet in one generation, prove that change for the good can happen, and, moreoverand more importantwithout violence or bloodshed in many cases. It is important for this generation to assert that. I repeat that the fight for democracy is at the core of those great changes.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary is making an important point. Does he also accept that this country has an important tradition of being a place where people have a right of asylum and where people can proselytise to get rid of oppressive regimes throughout the world? Does he agree that many such people were labelled as terrorists but later lauded as freedom fighters for achieving change? Will he assure me that the Bill will not criminalise those who plead for decency and change in their societies?

Charles Clarke: I give that reassurance and I shall revert to that point later. I celebrate the various values of freedom of expression that are at the core of our society for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend states. If he will be patient, I shall deal with the need to defend those values against those who seek to destroy them.

Jim Cousins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all the historical events that he listed involved acts of terrorism according to the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 and that they would all be culpable under the Bill? Glorifying, inciting, encouraging or trying to emulate those events would, in some people's view, be offences under the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I greatly respect my hon. Friend; we served together on the Treasury Committee, but he is wrong. If he goes through the list in detail, he will see that the striking fact is that those changes were made by democratic processes and with little violence.

Louise Ellman: Does the Home Secretary accept that, in contrast to the society that he has just described, the terrorism that threatens this country is based on the fascist-type ideology of hatred and an obsessive wish to destroy the west and modernity?

Charles Clarke: I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend. I shall develop that point further because it is fundamental when considering the Bill.

John Denham: The House welcomes the progress to democracy in many parts of the world, but it is relatively recent and we cannot be sure that it is permanent. I am one of those who, in the 1980s, regularly produced material that praised the then Government of Nicaragua for their work in education, health and tackling poverty. That Government came to power in a revolution in which a brutal dictatorship was overthrown. Were those events to repeat themselves, I cannot understand how I would not be guilty of an offence under clauses 1 and 2.

Charles Clarke: With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, he is wrong. We have had that conversation privately and in the Select Committee that he chairs. I respect the motivation in Nicaraguait also applies to other parts of the worldto which he refers, but I do not accept his point. To argue that what he described would in any way violate the terms of the Bill is to misread the measure.
	The fight for democracy is at the core of the changes that have occurred. It is precisely because we have developed a highly successful model of integration, which enables people of all backgrounds and faiths to prosper and live together within the safeguard of common values, that our society has become an affront and a reproach to the ideologues who believe that only their way of living is right. We should make no mistake: the threat that we face is ideological. It is not driven by poverty, social exclusion or racial hatred.
	Those who attacked London in July and those who have been engaged in or committed the long list of previous terrorist atrocities were not the poor and the dispossessed. They were, for the most part, well educated and prosperous. Terrorists in the UK have also been ethnically and nationally diverse. Ideas drive those people forward. To revert to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) correctly made, unlike the liberation movements of the post world war two era, they are not in pursuit of political ideas such as national independence from colonial rule, equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and, in many cases, have been negotiated.
	However, there can be no negotiation about the recreation of the caliphate in this country, the imposition of sharia law, the suppression of equality between the sexes or the ending of free speech. Those values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation. It is equally wrong to claim, as some do, that the motivation of al-Qaeda and its allies is some desire to seek justice in the middle eastthe part of the world where progress has been most difficult to achieve in the past 30 years and where the litany of change that I read out has made so little headway. Al-Qaeda and its allies have no clear demands for the middle east. The only common thread in their approach is a violent and destructive opposition to democracy in any form. They find democracy in Palestine abhorrent and seek to destroy it.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: Not at the moment.
	Al-Qaeda finds democracy in Israel abhorrent and seeks to destroy it. It finds democracy in Afghanistan abhorrent and seeks to destroy it. Now it finds the democracy in Iraq, which the United Nations is trying to support and establish, so abhorrent that it does whatever it can to try to destroy it.

Douglas Hogg: rose

Charles Clarke: I shall not give way at the moment.
	Al-Qaeda's methods, too, are different. It recognises no common bonds with people who have different beliefs and its members are prepared to kill indiscriminately. Indeed, mass murder is their explicit objectivethe measure of success in their terms. Their methods of recruitment bear more comparison to self-destructive cults than political movements. However, we must acknowledge that their modern nihilism is innovative, flexible and cunning. Al-Qaeda and the networks that are inspired by it approach the task with all the resources of modern technology and all the focus of modern zealotry.
	The most important conclusion to draw from this analysis is that there is no particular Government policy decision, or even an overall policy stance, which we could change in order somehow to remove our society from the al-Qaeda firing line. Its nihilism means that our societies would cease to be a target only if we were to renounce all the values of freedom and liberty that we have fought to extend over so many years. Our only answer to this threat must be to contest and then to defeat it, and that is why we need this legislation.

Douglas Hogg: I do not disagree with what the Home Secretary is saying about al-Qaeda, but he must realise that the terrorism covered by the Bill also extends to overseas terrorism. There might well be movements designed to displace by violent means the Administration in Burma or that of President Mugabe. There are many people in the House who would want to see both those regimes displaced and who might countenance violent action being taken to achieve that. Does the Home Secretary want to turn those people into criminals?

Charles Clarke: Wanting to change the regime in Zimbabwe or Burma is the legitimate right of every citizen of this country. We might have different views about which regimes would qualify, but I would argue that there is almost a duty for democrats to argue for change in certain areas. It would not be right, however, to say that blowing up a tourist bus or a tube train, or taking action of that type, was a legitimate way of changing the regime of Robert Mugabe or whoever. That would not be acceptable

Douglas Hogg: What about action against Mugabe's security forces? What about action against his police? Or action against the police in Burma

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Secretary of State accepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention?

Charles Clarke: I have accepted it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should formally have accepted it earlier than I did.
	Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right to say that there is room for discussion about where the line should be drawn between peaceful and non-peaceful, and violent and non-violent action. I shall return to those issues when I come to the definition of terrorism in the Bill.
	I suggest that the best way to contest this threat is by building and strengthening the democracy of our society, by isolating extremism in its various manifestations, by strengthening the legal framework within which we contest terrorism, and by developing more effective means to do so. That is why, particularly since 7 July but also before then, we have worked very hardmy right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench in particularto build our relations with the Muslim communities and the communities of all faiths, and to discuss how we can build our democracy and strengthen it so that all communities, young and old, men and women, have a genuine, strong stake in our society.
	That means that we have to promote a society based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another and one race for another. It also means promoting the view that democracy is the means of making change in our society. We therefore need to take steps to isolate extremist organisations and those individuals who promote extremism. In so doing, it is essential for us to work closely with the mainstream faith communities and to understand their preoccupations. That is why we need legislation to outlaw incitement to hatred based on religion or race. We need legislation that makes it clear that the glorification of terrorism is not a legitimate political expression of view. We wish to encourage faiths to pursue their faith openly and directly.
	We want to attack the focus of extremist organisations. We are working, with international allies as necessary, to identify the networks and individuals who are promoting extremism, and we will use legal power to disrupt and weaken them. We intend to remove from the United Kingdom those foreign citizens who are using their time in our country to promote extremism, although that course of action is not legally straightforward. All the measures we have taken will further isolate and weaken those extremists who wish to promote terrorism as an appropriate form of activity. However, we need to strengthen the legal framework within which we can address those issues.
	Throughout all this, I assert the need to retain and strengthen our human rights and the values that underlie them, but, at the same time, I say that the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism is at least as important as the right of the terrorist to be protected from torture and ill-treatment. Our peoples expect not only the protection of individual rights but the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. We need a legal framework that seeks to address the difficult balance in relation to those rights. We cannot properly fight terrorism with one legal hand tied behind our back, or give terrorists the unfettered right to defend themselves as they promote and prepare violent attacks on our society. That is why we are proposing legal changes in Britain to outlaw acts preparatory to terrorism and terrorist training.

Desmond Swayne: I share the Secretary of State's objectives entirely. I agree that there now has to be a meeting engagement with the terrorists, and that we have to lick them here. However, I am concerned about the way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beith[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant to say the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Is the Secretary of State not alarmed at the very high number of people being detained for acts that contravene the anti-terrorism provisions which, on closer examination, are quite properly judged to be common law offences? He will have my support in the Lobby tonight, but this matter requires much greater examination.

Charles Clarke: I did not dismiss the concerns of the right hon. Member for what we must now call Beith-upon-Tweed. In fact, I did the opposite; I paid respect to what he and his political friend, Lord Carlile, had said. I also said that the Government would seek to address those points and criticisms.

Elfyn Llwyd: In regard to the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, not a lot has been done by the Government, despite the fact that those concerns have been expressed by many for a long time. Between April and June 2004, 2,147 searches were carried out under section 44. No arrests were made on the ground of anything to do with terrorism; 30 were made for other reasons. The following year, the figures were similar. Some of us were very concerned when the Terrorism Bill was introduced in 2000. We were told that it would be used very rarely, yet it was soon being used against peaceful, flag-waving people demonstrating against a Chinese Government official visiting London.

Charles Clarke: I think that I have said this about three times now, but I will say it again: we take seriously the points that were raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and by Lord Carlile. There are important issues that need to be addressed. The Association of Chief Police Officers is working specifically on them, and I shall address them. I agree that there are issues that need to be addressed.

Alan Simpson: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: Not at the moment. I will give way to my hon. Friend in a while.
	Before I finish outlining the general position, I should point out that the final element of our strategy for combating terrorism is the need to work internationally. This week is the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, and some Members were privileged enough to go to St. Paul's on Monday for a service of thanksgiving and rededicationI emphasise the word rededicationto celebrate that anniversary. Lord Ashdown, in his capacity as high representative in Bosnia, was asked to give an address, in which he said:
	We shall be lucky to reach the 70th anniversary of the United Nations without having to deal with chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism.
	That was a chilling remark, but not a foolish or stupid one, and it is one against which we need to prepare ourselves.
	The United Nations is also seeking to prepare itself. United Nations Security Council resolution 1624, adopted by the Security Council on 14 September this year, addresses that very question, on behalf not of an individual Government but of the whole of the United Nations, precisely because of the threat that Lord Ashdown described. That resolution reaffirms
	the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
	It condemns
	in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed.
	The United Nations Security Council also condemns
	in the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and
	repudiates
	attempts at the justification or glorification . . . of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.
	The resolution expresses deep concern
	that incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerances poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights . . . and must be addressed urgently and proactively by the United Nations and all States,
	and emphasises
	the need to take all necessary and appropriate measures in accordance with international law.
	It reaffirms
	that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
	And finally, the resolution:
	Calls upon all states to adopt such measures
	as we are doing today
	as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:
	(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts
	(b) Prevent such conduct
	(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering they have been guilty of such conduct.
	That is a very serious statement.

Robert Wareing: I take it from what my right hon. Friend says that any person in any country of the world who advocates terrorism would be subject to arrest under this Act should they arrive in this country? Would that be true if Pat Robertson, the American who advocated the assassination of democratically elected President Chavez of Venezuela, were to enter Britain?

Charles Clarke: I am not going to comment on individual cases

Alan Simpson: He's on our side.

Charles Clarke: Anybody who thinks that Pat Robertson is on my side is very wrong indeed. I am prepared publicly to deplore Pat Robertson's remarks, as I think that they were an outrage. In answer to the central question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), yes, that is the caseadvocating terrorism is not acceptable under this law.

Alan Simpson: The misgivings of many Members of the House relate to the final part of what the Home Secretary said about necessary and appropriate means. Will he confirm that of the 900 or so people who have been arrested and detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, there has not been a single successful prosecution made for membership of any organisation on the burgeoning proscribed list, which we are told must be banned internationally. What we have done is to create a culture of fear, and a sense of division and vulnerability, that has nothing whatever to do with successful action against terrorism.

Charles Clarke: I do not accept that. I am coming to proscription in a moment, and I will deal with my hon. Friend's point about proscribed organisations. I also observe, however, that the United Nations, in its action against terrorism, has listed proscribed individuals and organisations in a variety of ways.
	Because of the need for this action, it behoves all parties in the House to carry through the ambitions of the Security Council resolution, which the Bill seeks to do. In all candour, I say to the Liberal Democrats, with whom we have sought to work closelyand I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester, who has also sought to work closely with us to address these issuesthat their decision to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill weakens that common front of democratic politics against terrorism. Let me tell the House why I say that.
	The Liberal Democrats have legitimate arguments about the definition of terrorism in relation to the term glorification, and about the extension of the time limit for detention from 14 days to 90 days. I know that the hon. Member for Winchester has doubts, as he has said publicly and privately to me, about the wisdom of extending that time limit, and he has been perfectly fair about that. In relation to the structure of debates in the House, however, I do not believe that such doubts, which will be expressed, voted on and considered in Committee and on Reportand which, if so serious, could lead his hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Readingought to break the unity of the House in seeking to carry through the principle established on Second Reading. His leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), wrote to The Spectator on 22 Octoberwhich I thought was a spectacular thing for him to dorevealing that the Liberal Democrat shadow Cabinet was having
	a strategy meeting about how to provide the real opposition to the government while the Conservatives are mired in their leadership debate.
	I am sure that they are not mired in it; the debates and discussions currently taking place on that matter are inspired and interesting.
	If the Liberal Democrats want to provide real opposition to the Government, the way to do that is not to offer knee-jerk opposition to everything, but to work on the basis of principle, to carry things through and to debate things in a proper way. The principled position, in my view, is for the party to vote for Second Reading, and then vote against, as and when the hon. Member for Winchester thinks appropriate, on the particular measures later. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.

Mark Oaten: It is our judgment that real, principled opposition is about making a stand on the key issue of holding suspects without charge. We feel so strongly on that issue that we want to oppose the Bill's Second Reading tonight. It is still our long-term aim to achieve consensus, however, and we aim to work with the Home Secretary to find alternatives to this measure in the weeks ahead.

Charles Clarke: I believe that the hon. Gentleman does have a sincere intention in that respect, and is seeking agreement on some issues and trying to make positive proposals. He is absolutely entitled to do that. However, the time to address those questions is in Committee and on Report. If, in his view, the matter is resolved unsatisfactorily by the end of that process, he should vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I would understand that, but I do not understand why his colleagues have decided to vote against it on Second Reading.

Emily Thornberry: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that a number of Labour Members have grave reservations about this clause and about extending the period for which people can be kept in custody on no charge from 14 days to three months? Although many of us might vote for the Bill on Second Reading, we have grave reservations.

Charles Clarke: I certainly recognise that. I have discussed those reservations with a number of colleagues, and if I might say so, my hon. Friend put the position accurately and succinctly. The way to address such reservations is to accept that we need legislation, to have arguments and discussions inside our party and across the Floor of the House on the matters of concern, and in particular the 90-day limit and then to decide what to do.

David Winnick: I, too, will be voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. I am about the last person in the House to underestimate the dangers of terrorism, which some of us warned about long before what happened in the United States four years ago. On the three-month detention, however, will my right hon. Friend accept that the deep concern felt about that period is certainly not confined to the Liberal Democrats? Will there be further consultation between now and Committee to see whether an accommodation can be reached? If we want to reach a consensus, let us be frank: we will not reach a consensus on the 90 days, be it in this House, the other place or in the country at large. I hope that he can show some flexibility on that important issue.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that it is right to be flexible. I have made it clear throughout that consensus is the right way to proceed, not only in our party, which is an often ambitious target, but even with Opposition Members. It would be better if we sent out a united and coherent message. In Committee, on Report and otherwise, I am ready to be flexible in discussions, if we can reach an agreement. Furthermore, it would be better if the House resolved the matter rather than left it to the other place, but that requires Members on both sides of the House to work constructively to reach agreement.

Stephen McCabe: Allowing for people's anxieties, is not our track record that detention beyond seven days has been used very sparingly since that period was extended in 2004? Is not it fair to say that the real choice that might confront the House is whether to give an advantage to the police when trying to deal with complex terrorist investigationsan advantage that can be subject to parliamentary and judicial scrutinyor to give that advantage to the terrorist?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend's assessment is correct. That will be one of the issues that we discuss later in the passage of the Bill.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend talked about the strategy for fighting terrorism, the final part of which was the international element. The one thing that he missed out, however, is intelligence gathering, which experts tell us is a vital part of the strategy. In addition to concerns about section 44, does he accept that some clauses of the Bill limit the ability of our security services to gather intelligence from parts of the community that would otherwise come forward and provide intelligence?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to put the gathering of intelligence at the centre of what we do. He is also entirely correct in the corollary of that point, which is that it is important to have close relationships with the community. I pay tribute to the work that he has done to achieve that since he entered the House, and particularly since July. I do not, however, accept his suggestion that our proposals would damage our ability to achieve it.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I shall be happy to give way, but I am about to deal with the 90-day point.

Kenneth Clarke: Before the Home Secretary does that, may I ask him a question? He has referred to the House's possible reactions to the Bill as a whole, as opposed to the 90-day rule. Does he not accept that reservations about the Bill as a whole result from circumstances that have arisen in response to events? It is only a few months since we produced legislation of this kind in response to Belmarsh, which was highly controversial and which referred to none of these issues.
	This Bill bears all the hallmarks of a reaction to the 7 July bombings, when the Government felt the need to do something. We were even told that the House might be recalled during the recess. Much of the Bill is covered by existing legislation. It looks as though there has been a trawl through the criminal law in an attempt to put together a tough-looking Bill, in order to demonstrate that the Government are projecting us further. In fact, most of the Bill is peripheral to the heart of the real problem.

Charles Clarke: As one who was keen to promote the right hon. and learned Gentleman's candidacy for the leadership of his partyeven if only to keep the name Clarke in lights as much as possibleI have to say that, notwithstanding my deep regret over his failure to survive the first ballot, the reason may have been a lack of homework on some of the issues that need to be addressed.
	This Bill was envisaged in debate on the Floor of the House during the passage of the Bill that became the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. That is because when measures to deal with offences involving, for instance, incitement and training were proposed by the Newton committee and others, we said that we would return to them for precisely the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cites: the need for prosecution. I gave the House a commitment that we would legislate on those issues during this parliamentary Session.
	It is true that following the events of 7 July there are more measures in the Bill than would otherwise have been the case. We sent a list of proposals to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for Winchester as early as 15 July. That list had been prepared in the spirit of following through our proposals. The Bill is therefore not emergency legislation. Moreover, the fact that we are allowing two days on the Floor of the House for the Committee stage and another two days for Report indicates our keenness to establish the non-emergency nature of the legislation, and to put it on a proper footing.

Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I want to make some progress before giving way again. I have given way a fair amount, and I will continue to do so keenly, even to some of the most experienced demagogues in the House. I know that my giving way to them will be a joy for the whole House, if not for me. I promise them that I will give way later.
	Let me say something about the specifics that we shall debate in Committee and on Report. Part 1 contains several new offences. The first is the offence of encouragement of terrorism, also known as indirect incitement. It is already an offence under our law to incite people directly to commit specific terrorist attacks. We now want to be able to deal with those who incite terrorism more obliquely, but who nevertheless contribute to the creation of a climate in which impressionable people might believe that terrorism was acceptable.The Bill criminalises those who make statements which they believe, or have reasonable grounds for believing, are likely to be understood by their audience as an inducement to commit terrorist acts.

Michael Gove: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but I shall choose my own time to do so, if I may.
	The Bill extends the provisions to those who disseminate terrorist material, including on the internet, but makes it clear that those who simply transmit material that does not reflect their views will not be caught. That will, among other things, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe's convention on the prevention of terrorism, which I think is an important step.
	The encouragement offence also includes glorification, which was a manifesto commitment. After we published our initial proposals, it was clear that there was considerable unease about the proposal for a self-contained offence of glorification of terrorism. In the spirit of consensus, we have now responded to that concern. Accordingly, glorification is now an offence only if the person who glorifies terrorism believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the remarks will be understood as an incitement to terrorist acts.
	Some concern has been expressed about the appropriate definition of terrorism, particularly by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. The definition that will apply to the new offences in the Bill is the one that was agreed by Parliament for the Terrorism Act 2000, with the addition of a small change which will bring threats against international bodies, such as the United Nations, within the scope of the definition. Beyond that, the Bill uses the definition of terrorism that has become established in our law.
	The definitions used internationally, such as that used in the recent European Union Council framework decision of 13 June 2000, do not appear to be substantially different, and we do not consider them to have advantages over the definition used in the UK legislation. Following the Security Council resolution from which I quoted earlier, the UN is still seeking agreementwhich I think will be difficult to achieveon an appropriate definition of terrorism.
	Let me emphasise, in the light of the discussion that we have been having, that the Bill will not in any way interfere with the right of political demonstration, with criticism of any regime or with an appeal for change, however strongly worded. Nor will it interfere with the rights of individuals to seek other peaceful means of achieving political ends. What it outlaws is the encouragement of violent attacks.
	The offence of encouragement of terrorism is a serious offence, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, and has been framed with a number of safeguards. First, the person making the statement must have known, believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that it would have been likely to be understood as an encouragement of terrorism by a member of the audience to whom it was made. Secondly, any prosecution could proceed only with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would have to determine whether a prosecution was in the public interest. That is an important safeguard, and not to be taken lightly.

Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I give way to demagogue No. 1.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Home Secretarythough not for the accolade.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, on this part of the Bill as on others, not only is our position on the principle that stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), but we have always been prepared to support the Government when there is consensus? We said that last year, and we have said it since the election. There is potential for consensus if the Home Secretary goes further with the part of the Bill that deals with such issues as intent, and there is potential for consensus elsewhere. That, surely, must be the best basis for legislation against terrorism.

Charles Clarke: I judge all Members principally by their acts, and the key act is voting. I judge them on how they vote on crucial questions. I am very ready to accept that the hon. Gentleman is displaying integrity when he says he seeks consensus. That is a generous assessment, but I am ready to make it. Ultimately, however, the choice is simple: do we believe that the Bill should have its Second Reading or not? If we say no, we are saying that there will be no counter-terrorism legislation.[Interruption.] That is what is meant by a vote in the House of Commons. If an hon. Member decides that he does not agree with a particular measure, a particular clause or a particular set of clauses, he will either table an amendment or vote against the clause or clauses during the substantial consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report. I might disagree with that, but I would respect it.
	The hon. Member for Winchester made clear in our discussions during the summer that he had real difficulty with one or two points, not only on his own account but on that of his party. He is entitled to adopt that position: it is a reasonable position for a political leader to adopt. What he is not entitled to doand this is why I make my point as sharply as I dois say, We oppose any legislation on counter-terrorism.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I give way to demagogue No. 2.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to the Home Secretary.
	A little while ago, a perfectly respectable public figure expressed the sentiment that, in view of the nature of the occupation of Gaza and the west bank, she fully understood how some young Palestinians could be driven to become suicide bombers. That statement would appear to contravene every single part of clause   1. Is the intention to criminalise that statement?

Charles Clarke: I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend was quoting Jenny Tonge or Cherie Blair. Those are the quotations that are often batted around. I am glad that he has raised the issue, however, because absolutely nothing in the Bill would prevent anyone from expressing understanding, from discussing why something had happened or from voicing any such emotions.[Interruption.] It is not about encouragement or incitement, so the statement to which my hon. and learned Friend refers would not in any sense contravene this legislation.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I take him back to the definition of terrorisman issue that we will have to consider very carefully. Is it not true that one reason why terrorism is undefined at the United Nations is that many a despotic regime is only too pleased for any violence used against it to be described as terrorism, just as the Germans described the actions of the French resistance during the second world war as terrorism? We will have to tackle this issue, because as drafted the definition is so wide that legitimate armed resistance to tyranny would be covered and any encouragement of it would be criminalised.

Charles Clarke: As I have said on a number of occasions, I simply do not accept that. Quite apart from points of principle, such as how one could or should have resisted fascism between the wars or promoted change in eastern Europe after the war, it is important to understandhence my devoting quite a lot of the early part of my speech to the issuethe nature of the terrorist threat that we are dealing with now, compared with some that we have had to deal with in the past. It is right as we legislate today to take that into account.

Rob Marris: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friendhe is being very generous. Of course we face a terrible terrorist threat in this country and around the world. However, let us consider the example of Burma and imagine that I said the following to the Karen people: It's fantastic that you blew up that railway line and didn't injure anybody, as an act against a regime under which you do not have democracy. Please keep doing it again and again, until the regime in Burma is changed. As long as you don't injure people, I'll support you blowing up railway lines. If I said that, would I not be breaching clause 1?

Charles Clarke: Actually, such a specifically violent act could kill. Such people say that they do not want to kill, but when the NatWest tower was blown up, people were killed, even though it was suggested that that should not happen. If we advocate acts that would kill people[Interruption.] The act that my hon. Friend describes would have that effect, and it would be taken into account.

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He is doubtless familiar with the Muslim Council of Britain's media spokesman, Mr. Inayat Bunglawala, who has been asked to advise the Home Office on a number of cultural matters. Mr. Bunglawala has in the past said that Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who was responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993, was courageous and was arrested only because he called on Muslims to fulfil their duty to Allah to fight against oppression and oppressors everywhere. Mr. Bunglawala subsequently wrote of Osama bin Laden that he was a freedom fighter. Are these comments to be criminalised under this legislation?

Charles Clarke: That case would be considered by the court at the time, but I should point out that the individual concerned has recentlymore recently than the period to which the hon. Gentleman refersgone out of his way to condemn, at length, terrorist acts. I am not an expert on his writings and works, but his conduct in respect of all such issues should be taken in the round.

John Denham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a powerful case for legislation to deal with the terrorist threat that we face, but does he not acknowledge that this legislation goes far wider than that? It is a question not of someone in this country supporting an action taken somewhere else in the world, but of anyone anywhere in the world supporting any type of violence. If an Uzbek living in Uzbekistan supported the destruction of a statue as a symbol of opposition to the tyrannical regime in his country, he would be guilty of an offence under clause 17, and liable to prosecution and seven years' imprisonment, should he come to this country. Is it really our intention to do the dirty work for some of the most oppressive and tyrannical regimes in the world?

Charles Clarke: As my right hon. Friend knows, it is not our intention to do anybody's dirty work; rather, we intend to do our best to protect this countryand, indeed, the worldagainst terrorism as a means of political change. All our constituents will want us to do that as best we can. That said, I concede, as I have to my right hon. Friend privately and in his Committee, that we have to look at these definitions in order to avoid such questions arising. I say again

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face the microphone in addressing the House. Otherwise, it is difficult for hon. Members to hear.

Charles Clarke: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I did not intend to be rude.
	We will look at these issues in Committee, and as I have said to the Home Affairs Committee and to others, if amendments are tabled that seem to meet the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, we will look at them very seriously. In our opinion the definitions in the Terrorism Act 2000, which form the basis of our current position, are the best founded that we have in our law, and they have not led to the abuses that some people are concerned about.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I know that a lot of Members want to get in, but I shall give way twice more and then make some more progress. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).

Clive Betts: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. I know that he genuinely wants to win over the Muslim community in this country in the fight against terrorism, but I wonder whether he understands the point that Muslims in my constituency made to me. They said that despite any assurances that prosecutions may generally not be in the public interest, the thousands of people who support resistance to what they regard as the occupation of Palestine or who support those whom they regard as freedom fighters in Kashmir will feel criminalised by this legislation. It will do nothing to win them over in the general fight against terrorism, in which we need their support.

Charles Clarke: On the contrary; I believe that we are doing a great deal to win those people over through our actions in the communitiesI described those actions earlier, and my hon. Friend is pursuing themand through our efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in the middle east. Those who believe that blowing up a tourist coach in Tel Aviv are in some sense moving that peace process forward are mistaken. In my opinion, they are setting back that process.[Interruption.] I would argue that the point applies in all such circumstances. My hon. Friend is correct to point to the importance of a very close dialogue with the communities in question, but it is very important not to confuse an argument for a particular form of political change in a particular placethe middle east, for examplewith an argument for the form of violent change that has been described.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I will give way once more, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), and then make some progress.

Richard Burden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is it not true that the Bill's definition of terrorism goes rather further than he is suggesting? Paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes states:
	The Bill also makes use of the term acts . . . of terrorism. Act and action are both defined in section 121 of the TACT,
	which is the Terrorism Act 2000. It continues:
	Section 1(5) makes it clear that . . . an act is also for the purposes of terrorism if it is taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation. Clause 20(2) of the Bill makes it clear that acts (or act) of terrorism as used in the Bill includes an act taken for the purposes of terrorism and so includes an act taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
	There is no doubt that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and that it is already proscribed under existing legislation. Let us consider the question of its having a major internal debate about whether to get involved in the political process in the west bank. If a Member of this House tried to use their influence with Hamasthrough intermediaries or directlyto persuade it to get involved in that political process, that would probably be to the benefit of that organisation. Would it be criminal to do so?

Charles Clarke: First, it would be to the benefit of that organisation, and, secondly, it would not be criminal. In fact, Hamas' role in these matters is dealt with.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I want to make some more progress. I have already spoken for almost an hour.

Peter Kilfoyle: Will my right hon. Friend give way once more?

Charles Clarke: I shall give way to my very charming, non-demagogic hon. Friend.

Peter Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Like every other Member, I get regular missives in the names of Members of the other House on behalf of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which commits acts of sabotage and violence in Iran against the elected Iranian Government. Would those who advocate its cause be guilty of an offence under this legislation?[Interruption.]

Charles Clarke: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out from a sedentary position, that is an interesting reinterpretation of the House of Lords' role. I cannot comment on a particular organisation, but I shall look at the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentions.
	The Bill creates a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism that I hope will find favour in all parts of the House. It also deals with training for terrorism and makes it an offence to give or receive training for terrorist purposes, or to attend a terrorist training camp. It contains the necessary measures to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations convention on the suppression of nuclear terrorism, and it extends the offence of criminal trespass to civil nuclear sites for reasons that, I hope, all Members will understand, given that such sites need the maximum possible protection. On that theme, we have decided that a small number of key military sites should be covered by the protection afforded by the offence of trespassing on a designated site in sections 128 to 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. An order designating those sites to be protected will be submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in due course.
	I should perhaps have emphasised more strongly in my responses the fact that all prosecutions for offences in part 1 require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that any offences involving the affairs of another country also require the consent of the Attorney-General. There is therefore a serious bar in the process in respect of some of the issues that have been raised.
	Part 2 makes changes in respect of proscription. I believe that proscription provides an important part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism and I am grateful that the House recently endorsed without a Division the order to proscribe an additional 15 organisations. The Bill widens the criteria for proscription to encompass groups that glorify terrorism, where it is reasonable to expect that such glorification will be seen by others as an inducement to emulate the terrorist acts in question.

Tony Baldry: rose

Charles Clarke: I am not giving way.
	I now move on to deal with pre-charge detentionanother key area of controversy. The Government propose to increase the maximum period of time that a person can be held prior to charge in terrorist cases from 14 days to three months. We believe that there is a compelling case, which is strongly supported by the police.

Chris Mullin: rose

Charles Clarke: I will give way to my hon. Friend when I have made further progress.
	Lord Carlile of Berriew, a Liberal Democrat peer, said in paragraph 61 of his report published on 12 October:
	I am satisfied beyond doubt that there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest.
	That is a strong statement, which I greatly respect. The case for an extension to three months was set out very clearly in my letter of 6 October to Opposition spokespeople and in the accompanying paper from assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, the nation's most senior anti-terrorist police officer.
	Much of our anti-terrorist legislation derives from our experience of dealing with 30 years of Irish terrorism, but the fact is that we are dealing with a very different threat now and we believe that the current time limit is not well designed to deal with that new threat. Recent terrorist plots have been designed to cause mass casualties, with no warnings, sometimes involving suicide and with the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, to which Lord Ashdown referred last Monday in the quote that I cited earlier. The need to ensure public safety by preventing such attacks means that it is necessary to make arrests at an earlier stage than in the past, when there was a culture of warnings and where weapons of mass destruction did not exist as now. That often means that less evidence has been gathered at the point of arrest, which means that more time will be needed to gather sufficient evidence to charge a suspect.
	Terrorist networks are often internationalanother difference in the evolution of the threat that we face. That means that inquiries have to be undertaken in many different jurisdictions and under different rules. Many of those cannot operate to tight time scales. Moreover, establishing the identity or even the nationality of suspects can take a long time and the use of forged and stolen documentation compounds the problem. The global nature of modern terrorism means that it is often necessary to employ interpreters. It is sometimes necessary to find interpreters who can interpret dialects from remote parts of the world. Such interpreters can be hard to find, which, together with interviews to be translated, slows down the process and restricts the amount of time available.
	Terrorist cases are also highly complex. I remind the House that investigations into the events of 7 and 21 July yielded 38,000 exhibits that filled two warehouses, all of which need to be scrutinised. The same investigations required 80,000 videos of CCTV footage to be studied and 1,400 fingerprints across 160 crime scenes. As I said earlier, terrorist networks are now highly capable of using technology. In recent cases, a large numbersometimes in the hundredsof computers and hard drives have been seized and much of the data on those computers have been encrypted. The examination and decryption of data on such computers and hard drives takes time and expertise; then, of course, the data need to be analysed in order to incorporate the outcome of the analysis into an interview strategy.

Douglas Hogg: rose

William Cash: rose

Charles Clarke: I have already said that I am going to give way at an appropriate point later.
	Forensic requirements are still more complex and time consuming, particularly with the possibility of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear hazards. It often takes a long time to make a site safe before it can be examined. That applied in the case of the London attacks in July, and the al-Qaeda methodology of mounting simultaneous attacks extends the time taken for proper crime scene examination and analysis.
	The use of mobile telephony by terrorists, as a secure means of communication, is, by definition, a relatively new phenomenon. It takes time to obtain information from service providers and subsequently to analyse that information to identify links between suspects and their locations at key times.
	For all those reasons, I believe that a strong case exists for increasing the maximum detention period. I stress that we are talking about a maximum period. Very few cases currently run to 14 days and we would expect an even smaller proportion to run beyond that. The safeguards that exist are designed to ensure that no one is kept for any longer than absolutely necessary.

William Cash: rose

Douglas Hogg: rose

Charles Clarke: I have already said that I will give way at an appropriate point in my speech, and I repeat that. I am sorry if the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is a little deaf.
	All detention beyond 48 hours will have to be authorised on at least a weekly basis by a district judge. The judge can permit detention to continue only if he is satisfied that it is necessary and that the investigation is being carried out as expeditiously as possible. If that is not the case, the person must be released. I have said publicly to the Select Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that I am ready to consider in Standing Committee the case for such authorisations to be made by a senior circuit judge, as recommended by Lord Carlile. As now, the independent reviewer of our terrorism legislation will be able to monitor the use of this power and report any concerns that he or she may have. I shall give way at this point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Douglas Hogg: Many of us who practise in the criminal courts are aware of the danger of confessions made after extensive questioning. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why the protections of PACE were put in place. With 90 daysor, indeed, any extended period of detentionduring which people are questioned for many days after they have been held in custody, there is a serious risk of their making confessions that are not sound. Alternatively, they may make accusations against other people that are not sound. They will do so, of course, in order to get out of custody. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that point?

Charles Clarke: That precise risk, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly identifies, will be taken into account by the courts when they come to consider any charges. The circumstances under which such risks might arise will also be taken into account by the judge who considers the police application for holding a person for a longer period.

Dominic Grieve: If the Home Secretary is going to continue with the line of having 90 days' detention, are we not going to need a completely separate set of PACE rules to cover detention beyond the 14-day period? It would be helpful to the House if he could confirm that he has given some consideration to that matter.

Charles Clarke: I have given that matter consideration and I am prepared to consider it further in Committee.

Chris Mullin: I cannot for the life of me imagine why we have uncritically accepted the 90-day period and I am sure that the police are as amazed as we are that the Government so quickly endorsed their first throw of the dice. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, so far, no one has been detained for the full 14 days? I think that two were held for 13 days. If so, how can such a large leap from 14 to 90 days be so urgent?

Charles Clarke: In general, I respect my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate, including the article that he recently published, but I do not respect his argument about the approach of the police. They were not throwing dice; they do not approach the matter in a gambling way; they are not trying to put forward some hazard. They are trying to make a serious assessment while legislation is being considered in the House of the time that they are likely to need in certain extreme circumstances. They may be right or wrong and people may reach a view as to whether they have made their case well, but it is nothing to do with gambling. The reason why a small number of cases have not exceeded 14 days is precisely because of the 14-day requirement.

David Heath: Are not the circumstances requiring the additional time, which many of us find difficult to accept, applicable before the Home Secretary has at his disposal the palette of lesser offences envisaged in the Bill? Would it not be a much more satisfactory solution to charge people with committing acts preparatory to terrorism or of withholding information in order to put them before a court in a proper way? Is that not preferable to holding people without charge?

Charles Clarke: There are two points there. First, in the circumstances that I described in my earlier remarks, it is not clear that evidence has been collected for acts preparatory to terrorism within the requisite time scale. Secondly, the Government are looking closely at whether any form of legal evolution, if I may put it like that, might be beneficial in respect of lower or higher charges. We are prepared to consider that possibility, whose implications go wider than this Bill. There will be concerns about that proposition, but it is reasonable for us to consider it and determine what might be done. At present, however, we do not see how it would help the situation.

David Davis: Clearly, massive issues of natural justice are involved in the 90-day proposal, but there are also serious questions about its effectiveness. A person might be held for 90 days while evidence is pursued, but if that pursuit fails, he or she will be released after, in effect, spending three months in jail. In that case, will not the state have created a martyr to the cause that it is trying to defeat?

Charles Clarke: That is a possibility, which is why extensions of the detention period will be subject to judicial review at each stage. Moreover, when the police decide whether to seek judicial agreement to extend the period of detention prior to charge, they will take into account precisely the considerations that the right hon. Gentleman outlined. He raises a legitimate point, but given the very small number of cases that are likely to arise, I do not think that the outcome that he suggests is either likely or realistic.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend has said that Lord Carlile supports the extension proposal. However, Lord Carlile has criticised the Bill for the inadequacy of the protection given to suspects, and has recommended eight separate safeguardsincluding the use of an examining magistrateto be employed if consideration is being given to detaining a person for more than one month. Given that the recommendations are unlikely to be included in the Bill, will my right hon. Friend concede that there is no possibility for hon. Members, even in Committee, to recommend detention of more than 28 days?

Charles Clarke: I do not concede that, but I will concede that the points raised by my hon. Friend and Lord Carlileand I emphasise that Lord Carlile supports the Bill in principlerequire us to look at the safeguards that have been suggested. We are certainly ready to do so, both in Committee and outside it.

Adrian Bailey: Andy Hayman makes a pretty strong argument in his submission, but I accept that the extension of detention from seven days to three months is dramatic and rather arbitrary. In the past, the judiciary have demonstrated a very strong commitment to protecting human rights in such cases. Would not the sensible and balanced procedure be to pass enabling legislation in respect of the extension, but to put its scrutiny, process and management into the hands of those who have demonstrated both expertise in and concern for human rightsthat is, the judiciary?

Charles Clarke: I appreciate that the judiciary has a strong role in this process, but so does Parliament. It is important that we put in place a proper review process, so that the House can come to a view from time to time on the operation of the legislation. That is the way to go.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I shall give way a couple more times, then conclude my remarks.

John Baron: I want to return to a point that I tried to make earlier. The Government are fast establishing a track record of accepting recommendations from the security forces without giving them a sufficiently rigorous examination. Will the Home Secretary explain what evidence he has seen to back up his contention that the detention period should be lengthened? Specifically, why has an extension to 90 days been chosen?

Charles Clarke: I reject the hon. Gentleman's charge completely. Perhaps I should have done so earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is completely and utterly false to suggest that the police come up with a proposition to which we all say, That's all right then. When we ask the police for their assessment of a situation, they give it. We take that assessment seriously, because the police have high levels of professional expertise and competence in dealing with matters of forensics, encryption, international relations and so on. That was demonstrated most recently here in London in July. They understand the problems that they are trying to wrestle with very clearly, and the old days of good cop, bad cop are gone.
	I take the police seriously, but I scrutinise what they say. However, even if I did not do that, this House and everyone else wouldand rightly so. I ask hon. Members to be a little more even handed than the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), and to scrutinise what the police say while bearing in mind the possibility that they might be right.

Tony Lloyd: Earlier, my right hon. Friend spoke about the need to comply with the European convention, and I endorse what he said very strongly. However, this country gives off very strong signals when it changes its laws on terrorism. Any change here is used as evidence by other countries that they can do the same. Given that, is this aspect of the Bill compatible with the European convention?

Charles Clarke: This aspect of the Bill is compatible with the convention because the whole Bill is compatible, but my hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I discuss how to deal with terrorism with colleagues in the EU, the US, Russia and other countries, yet our legal system adopts a different approach from many others. That is why I referred to the report from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how these matters are dealt with in a variety of other jurisdictions and systems. I acknowledge that completely different legal systems are involved, but in the EU and other countries people can be held for very long periodsup to four yearswhile charges are investigated. We must look at that, and I accept that legal systems vary widely. However, we discuss these questions a lot, and I repeat that the Bill is compatible with the European convention.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way, and I have a simple question about the Crown Prosecution Service. Specialist prosecutors are used for a range of offences, including domestic violence and street robbery, but are they used in terrorism cases? If not, should not consideration be given to developing their use in that respect? In that way, the option of charging people with lesser offences for which they can be remanded could be investigated proactively before any extension of detention were considered.

Charles Clarke: I can answer my right hon. Friend directly: yes, there are specialist prosecutors in the areas that he mentioned, and I accept his recommendation that their use should be developed. However, it is important to note that the CPS's expertise in these matters has led it to support the changes proposed in the Bill. People sometimes say, Don't trust the experts. I suppose that that is a good guide in many walks of life, and better than saying, Trust the politicians, they're not experts in anything. The truth is that we should take the views of our experts seriously, whether they be prosecutors, police or something else.

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I am going to conclude.

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give way to me.

Charles Clarke: I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to give way. Part 3 of the Bill contains the normal miscellaneous and supplementary provisions, but

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary give way? He is running away from debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely up to the Home Secretary to decide when he will accept interventions, and from whom.

Charles Clarke: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is deeply wounding to be accused of running away from debate, given the interventions that I have allowed from such a large number of people. If the hon. Gentleman had run for leadership of his party, I promise that I would have given way to him. However, he did not, and I am not sure which candidate he supports today.
	Finally, I draw attention to clause 35, which provides for the appointment of an independent reviewer to report on the operation of the legislation. Earlier, I commended to the right hon. Member for Beith-on-SeaI mean the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweedthe role played by Lord Carlile. I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the care and attention that he has brought to that role. He is noted for his independence of thought, and the House may be interested to hear what he says about the Bill. In paragraph 111 of his report, he states:
	I regard the current proposals as providing a set of useful and necessary additions to the law to counter terrorism.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I confirm to the House that neither of the amendments proposed has been selected for debate by Mr. Speaker.

David Davis: This debate is part of a process that began before 7 July, but which took on a new urgency after that date. On that day, we met to pay tribute to those who lost their lives, and to those who rushed to save them. We do so again today.
	That day was the worst of days, but it brought out the best in the British people. It highlighted an instinctive desire to pull together, an unwillingness to be cowed or bullied by the terrorists, and a stubborn determination to get on with our lives.
	On 7 July, there were a few evil men, but many more good men and women. They responded to the horror with fortitude, self-sacrifice and great generosity. That is the way we defeat terrorism: by holding firm to our beliefs. Global terrorism is an attack on those very thingsour way of life, our beliefs, our liberties, and our lives. So let me deal with one crucial argument right up front.
	The Prime Minister said recently:
	I care about one basic . . . liberty which is the right to life of our citizens and freedom from terrorism
	fine words, but we should remember that literally millions of people have died to defend all the liberties that we enjoy today. They were secured through the sacrifices of previous generations. So let us not be the generation that casually gives them away.
	The Conservative party has long stood for liberty under the law, but a belief in individual freedom, in freedom of speech, and in our rights to justice are not the monopoly of any one party. The whole Houseevery individual Member and party memberfaces a difficult but vital challenge with the Bill. We must balance the security of the nation with the rights of ordinary citizens.
	With that warning, let me turn to the substance of the Bill. Let me start by thanking the Home Secretary for the way he has conducted himself throughout the discussions we have had about the Bill over the entire summer. Despite the pressures from the public, the press, and even the Prime Minister, he has brought a welcome openness of mind to the negotiations. As a result, there are many aspects of the Bill that I am able to support unequivocally.
	We welcome plans to create a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism; indeed, my party has called for that for some time. We also welcome the powers to clamp down on those who take part in terrorist training, or who visit terrorist training camps. Also, within limits, we support powers to introduce a new offence of indirect incitement to terrorism. Although there are significant drafting problems, all of these, and a number of other detailed aspects of the Bill, are intelligent, proportionate and, arguably, long overdue. They are necessary, and they are necessary now. But there are serious issues with other parts, so we must all pause, draw breath and think through the implications very carefully indeed.

Tony Baldry: I understand why we want to put up a united front with the Government today against terrorism. However, while going through the Bill, would my right hon. Friend make clear those parts of the Bill that, if the Government do not amend in Committee, we shall vote against on Report? As the Bill is drafted, indirect incitement to terrorism is an offence that could be committed by negligence. We have to carry with us not just communities but, in due course, juries, and would not that offence be far better as an offence of specific intent rather than an offence of negligence?

David Davis: My hon. Friend very intelligently pre-empts the next part of my speech. Let me say, because of the important parts of the Bill that are necessary now, we want to see the Bill make progress, but in Committeewhich as he is aware will be held on the Floor of the House at our requestand on Report we will resist the 90-day proposal, which I will go through in detail in a moment, and seek to amend quite sharply the proposals on glorification, because they, as the Bill stands, and as has been apparent from the debate so far, are seriously flawed. So we will oppose or amend in Committee and on Report and if we fail in those measures, we shall vote against Third Reading. That is the proposal that I am putting to the House today.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am sure that many people in the House would like to know precisely how he hopes to amend that clause. While everyone says that terrorism has not changed through the ages, in many ways it has. As one who was thrown out of Pinochet's Chile in 1986incidentally, his Government were supported at the time by the right hon. Gentleman's Governmentfor attending the funeral of a boy who had had petrol poured over him and been set on fire by the police[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is asking me to hurry up, but this is an important matter. Some of us would like to know precisely how he intends to change this issue, because if it is too indirect, of course glorification should be opposed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting far too long.

David Davis: I shall explain that in detail during my speech.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, contrary to what the Home Secretary has maintained, any public expression of sympathy with or understanding of terrorist acts by people, including young Palestinians because of the west bank, would be criminalised under the Act because intention has not been built into the Bill. That is the vice. May I press him on that, thereforethe question that was asked before: is it the intention

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that interventions must be brief.

David Davis: I missed the end of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but if he is asking whether intention will be the key measure, yes is the answer. I shall return to that.

Brian Binley: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. You mentioned that you would pay particular attention

David Davis: He mentioned.

Brian Binley: My right hon. Friend mentioned that the Front Bench would question the 90-day rule very seriously, and indeed the glorification point. I support the council for resistance in Iraq, and I do so consistently. Will he therefore accept that part 1 of the Bill makes a nonsense of some of the Secretary of State's words and needs amending enormously?

David Davis: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, he picks up the point made by the shadow Attorney-General to the Home Secretary, which is that the definition of terrorism in the Bill, because it is based on the United Nations definition, is inadequate. There are common-sense elements to this which are self-evident: for example, that it is always wrong to blow up innocent civilians, and that it is always wrong to attack a democracy. So I do not believe that we are incapable of creating a set of definitions that will allow us to achieve what is intended in the Bill. That is what we will set out to do in Committee on the Floor of the House, in which everyone can take part, and on Report if we do not succeed.
	I intend to make progress now. Poorly drafted counter-terrorism measures have many risks. They can be ineffective. They can fail to ensure successful prosecution of actual terrorists. They can trip over human rights legislation, or be used and abused for the wrong purpose. They can impinge on the rights and freedoms of innocent people in their attempt to deny those rights and freedoms to guilty people. As a result, they can easily create a sense of injustice which can act as a rallying call to each would-be terrorist in the country. Time and again we see counter-terrorism measuresstatutory and otherwisebeing used for the wrong things. Examples have been mentioned during earlier interventions on the Home Secretary, but I shall repeat them.
	In 200001, there were 8,500 incidents of stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. The following year, there were 21,500, and last year there were nearly 29,500. The Home Secretary may say that that is partly as a result of the increased terrorist threat. He may be partly right, but of course Lord Carlile said something different.
	What security threat was there from the hundreds of people stopped under the Terrorism Act in Brighton during the Labour party conference? What terrorist threat was there from an 82-year-old war hero who dared to disagree with the Government? What danger did Miss Sally Cameron pose when she simply walked along a cycle path beside a port in Dundee? Did Miss Cameron's usual evening stroll really require two police cars to come screaming up, as she put it in the Daily Mail,
	like a scene from 'Starsky and Hutch'?

Rob Marris: She was called Cameron.

David Davis: Yes, Cameron; I think they are relatives.[Interruption.] I cannot believe that the Home Secretary is seeking to interfere in the leadership contest by that route, anyway.
	Is it right that Miss Cameron should be held for several hours at a police station for the grave offence of walking on a cycle path?
	Such examples highlight why we must look at new proposals with scepticism until the case is proven. Let us apply that test particularly to those that are the most controversial. The proposed new crime of glorification, which I have been asked about, is one. Today's proposal is better than that originally anticipated when the Prime Minister announced the clause back in August. As the Home Secretary said, he wrote to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and me. I objected to various aspects of it, as did others, and he has changed it. The revised version has brought together the incitement and glorification clauses of the existing Bill, but the term glorification still remains too broad, and I am not convinced that it is necessary or desirable. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), we clearly have to address a definition of foreign terrorism if we are going to pursue this.
	The proposed law does not require that an individual intends to encourage terrorism in order to commit a crime. It rests on the requirement that someone's comments could reasonably be expected to incite terrorism. That is a test of negligence, not criminality. Of course, it also fails the Cherie test. The Prime Minister's wife famously talked sympathetically about the motives of suicide bombers, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) reminded us. Unless the Prime Minister is seriously suggesting that his wife should be locked up, the clause needs to be thought through again. If it cannot be improved in that and the other aspects that have been mentioned today, it must be removed.

Jeremy Corbyn: Many organisations are already proscribedincluding the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which was proscribed some years agoand, therefore, supporting them would be a criminal act. Will the right hon. Gentleman propose any amendments to remove the proscription list?

David Davis: No, I will not propose such amendments. That decision has to be made by the Executive. However, in the light of the debate today, we will consider what acts as a benefit to an organisation, because some good points have been made about that important issue.

Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that this part of the Bill is said to reflect the intention of the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism, but that article 5 requires an element of intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence?

David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend makes his point brilliantly, as always, and it is the question of intent that is key. We cannot have a serious criminal offence that can be committed by negligence rather than intent. When we discussed the matter with a variety of officials, it was suggested that it was difficult to prove intent. Given what we have seen, even since 7 July, I do not think that a British jury would find it difficult to arrive at a decision on intent.
	The great sticking point in the Bill remains the plan to increase the amount of time that a terrorist suspect can be detained without charge from 14 to 90 days. I shall spend most of my speech on that issue, because it is so important. In short, this is a proposal, as the civil rights group Liberty points out, to imprison someone for the equivalent of a six-month sentence. But under this provision, they will have never faced a charge, let alone a trial. And if they never do, they will be released after three months inside for no reason at all. If they did not have a reason to hate Britain when they went in, they may well have one once they come out.
	A change of such magnitudewith such risks to our system of justice and even to the effectiveness of legislationwould require a really compelling argument, and that is what the Prime Minister says he has heard. I have to tell the Home Secretary that I have spoken to the police and the security services and, at his behest, I have received a Privy Council briefing, and I have heard no such compelling argument from any quarter. Indeed, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for this particular measure. I have heard good arguments, but they can all be dealt with by other means.
	For example, one argument says that it takes time to crack encryption codes to access evidence on computers. That argument is dealt with by invoking the powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which made withholding such codes a criminal offence. Therefore, it would be possible to charge the alleged terrorist with that offence and hold them on that basis. We happily support increasing the penalty for that offence, as clause 15 provides.
	Another argument is that our criminal law does not allow the police to interview people once they have been charged, which may be an argument for not charging them in some cases. That argument is answered by changing that rule in terrorist cases, which would be a much smaller infringement of our traditions of liberty and justice by comparison with the proposed 90-day extension, but it would achieve the same aim. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to give the police the powers that they need. But he should not simply give the police the powers they demand.
	One Home Office Minister went further. She said:
	The three month period is what the police and security service say is necessary.
	But we now know that that is not the case. As a security service source told The Mail on Sunday at the weekend:
	MI5 does not get involved in drawing up policy.
	Rightly so. That is the role of the Government and they must fulfil it by making an objective assessment of the facts and acting accordingly. Even the Home Secretary admitted to the Home Affairs Committeeand repeated todaythat
	three months is not a God-given amount.
	That statement on its own blows a hole in the Government's argument.
	I remind the House that the proposed increase to 90 days comes less than two years after the time limit was increased to 14 days under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There is a genuine and fundamental objection to any further extension, but it does not just come from this side of the House.

Chris Mullin: As the right hon. Gentleman says, when the police were last asked, they said that they wanted the period raised from seven to 14 days. Has he noticed that the reasons given at the timeto be found in the Official Report for 20 May 2003 at columns 9423are similar to the reasons advanced for the increase from 14 to 90 days? For example, there is a whole paragraph on the difficulties of extracting material from computers.

David Davis: That is a good point. One issue that needs to be resolved is that of resources. We have heard about problems with resources for interpretation and reading computer disks. It may well be a resource problem as much as anything else. If so, we would support any argument the Home Secretary makes to obtain more resources to deal with the problem.

David Burrowes: Would it not be more appropriate to deal with police concerns about the time taken to gather evidence by relaxing the position on the admissibility of intercept evidence, rather than taking the draconian step of removing people's liberty?

David Davis: That is one of many measures that would make the 90-day proposal unnecessary, and I shall return to that point shortly. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman pointed out in an intervention, we also have the crime of acts preparatory to terrorism, which will make charging much easier on lower levels of evidence, and various other measures would make this proposal unnecessary.

Sadiq Khan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his view on those cases in which it would not be possible to look at all the evidence within 14 days? What are his views on giving the court the ability to grant bail on conditions similar to the provisions for control orders, which would allow the authorities to keep an eye on someone deemed a serious threat without limiting his or her freedom?

David Davis: I am not especially fond of control orders, as the hon. Gentleman knows from previous debates, but there are several methods of dealing with the problem. One is greater surveillance before arrest. Another is refusing bail, after an early charge, if the individual is a threat to the state or the citizens of this country. We must not confuse an arrest with a view to conviction with an arrest to prevent terrorist action, which is what appears to be under consideration. We must be clear that from what we have seen so far, the 90-day proposal is not necessary.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: I will give way to my hon. Friend.

William Cash: I had complete confidence that my right hon. Friend would not run away from taking my intervention. Is it not the case that any period of more than 14 days would cause certain difficulties? I happen to have greater sympathy with the Government on the extension of time than some of my hon. Friends, but does my right hon. Friend agree that any extension would give rise to two specific problems? First, the judicial authority would have to be a senior judge, because such cases are few and far between. Secondly, if the Government were to be completely honest, they would have to admit that the proposals run up against the Human Rights Act 1998although the Home Secretary refused to admit that on 20 July, when I questioned him. I suspect that that is why he ran away today. We should add the words not withstanding the Human Rights Act 1998 to the provision, so that we do not get into a legal quagmire.

David Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend[Interruption]except that I do not agree with him about supporting this case. There are real problems with the extension beyond 14 days, such as the oppression of the individual. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Attorney-General made the point that, given the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998, we would have to change the PACE rules to ensure that people were not oppressed. A whole series of problems would arise from such an extension, and it would probably end up being counter-productive in terms of producing evidence in court.
	Such an extension would be particularly exorbitant given that Australia, which has faced every bit as much of a terrorist challenge as we have, has just had a heated debate about increasing the time from 48 hours to 14 days. Our Government are looking for more than six times that amount, but Australia is not even considering a 90-day proposal. Given everything that I have read and heard, I can say with absolute certainty the case has not been made. It remains a fundamental sticking point between the Government and the Opposition. It is a provision that we wish to see excised from the Bill and replaced with other measures before the Bill is signed into law. As I have told the Home Secretary already, although I am happy to support the Bill on Second Reading, if those significant matters are not corrected, I will recommend that my party does not support the Bill on Third Reading.
	Finally, we must turn our minds to what is not included in the Bill. As the Home Secretary will know, we have long campaigned for intercept evidence to be used in courts. The Italian Government have recently adopted its use; our Government are considering it. In fact, we know from their former spin doctor's recent book that they have been considering it since 1998. Sir Ian Blair says that he has
	long been in favour of intercept evidence being used in court,
	claiming that it
	would make my job easier'.
	On this issue, he is right, and we will attempt to introduce an amendment to that effect in Committee.
	As July's attacks demonstrated, we must all do more to stop the seeds of terrorism taking root at home, but they are often nurtured by foreign influences, so we must do far more to plug the gap in our defences created by our porous borders. A new single border police force would help with that job. It would be an effective force that could bring together the work of the seven different Government agencies that are currently responsible for the task. Once again, Sir Ian Blair has said:
	I have always thought that the idea of having a national border police force was a good idea . . . I am very supportive of this issue
	The Government are eager to give him his 90 days. Let them give him effective support instead.
	There are other matters of concern. The weekend press carried leaked documents highlighting weaknesses and organisational failures in the Government's anti-terror strategyProject Contest. All the legislation in the world is to no avail if the practical defences fail. There were also reports that the Government were considering our proposal of appointing a single Minister to deal with terrorism. Such a measure would sharpen the focus of the anti-terror strategy, and I recommend that the Government implement it immediately.
	This debate is not the start of the processnor is it the endas I said at the outset, it is merely a part of it. The Bill is not the complete solution to the problem, although I believe that much of it will help. We must find the balance between effective laws and fundamental freedoms, between security and freedom and between defending our way of life and defending the values that define it. The terrorists have set us a challenge, but we must rise to it. They want us to give away by choice the very freedoms that they set out to destroy by force. We must not do so. It is a tough balance to strike, but we must show that we are able to do it. In that way, our generation of parliamentarians will be able to say that we did our job: we kept our country safe and we kept our fundamental freedoms safe, too.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Paul Murphy: It has been a fascinating hour and a half. Obviously, the thrust of the debate in Committee will be about the 90-day question, but it seems much more significantthe right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, touched on this in the final part of his speechthat we in the House must always balance the first duty of any Government to protect their citizens from outrage, death and disaster and the duty to ensure that we safeguard those liberties that, over 1,000 years, the House has gathered for our people. However, we must be aware that we are in a situation that is not the same as in the past.
	Some hon. Members have referred to a casual Bill, while others have said that it is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened in July, but the reality is that we live in an extremely different world, so far as terrorism is concerned. My experience, which is limited in these matters to Northern Ireland, tells me that the sort of attacks that we saw in July are unprecedented in our history. Although the July bombings came out of the blue in a particular sense, in a general sense, they did not. We had been warned by the security services for many monthsindeed, yearsthat it was inevitable that, sooner or later, we would face the situation that we faced in July.
	During the past weeks, the Committee that I chair the Intelligence and Security Committeehas investigated the intelligence that may or may not have led people to take certain actions before July, and it will continue to do so in the months to come. The important thing is always that balance, which was not easy over 30 years in Northern Ireland. I suspect that internment did not prove successful, but certain parts of the terrorism legislation, certainly the gathering of intelligence, was extremely successful and helped to bring Northern Ireland to where it is today.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee has already taken evidence on the Bill over two hours or more from the Home Secretary and it will continue to monitor the Bill's progress through both Houses. On those clauses that deal with amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which relate to the issuing of warrants in the pursuit of national security, I agree strongly with Lord Carlile, whose views my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has touched on already, that the clauses on the intelligence services are helpful in countering terrorism and that, subject to appropriate controls and limitations, they are sensible and practical changes to the law.
	We will as a Committee consider in some detail the deliberations of both Houses during the weeks ahead, but I repeat the point that I made earlier, which must underpin our debates in the House on Second Reading and in Committee, that if anyone thinks that what we have seen over the past weeks and months is something that we have experienced before, they are very much mistaken, and we must adapt new legislation to new circumstances. At the same time, of course, as a number of hon. Members have said, it is not just a question of changing the legislation.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggested and as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety will indicate when she responds to the debate, we must consider the Bill in the context of a whole range of measures that exist to protect our citizens from the sort of outrages that we experienced in the summer in London. For example, we need to recruit more people to our police and our security services. We need to combat the so-called radicalisation of some of our communities. Religious leaders and Governments need to work together very closely. Police forces need special branches that can cope with the fresh challenges posed by 21st-century terrorism.
	It is worthwhile, too, to put on record that the way in which the agencies and the emergency services reacted in July has been praised right across the world, as has the way in which we responded to that outrage in our capital city. All these issues must be taken in the round, as a whole. For example, on the restructuring of the police, there is no question in my mind about the fact that we need police forces that can deal with the intelligence requirements and the need to counter terrorism in the modern world. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly decided to look at those issues.
	I want to digress, but on an important point. In Wales, the situation is slightly different from the rest of England as regards the police, and an all-Wales police force, accountable to the Home Secretary but working closely with the National Assembly, would be sensible. However, long-standing, effective and successful forces, such as Gwent, should be able to continue in some form within the new structures so that accountability, efficiency and community support are retained.
	None of us wants more counter-terrorism legislation and none of us wants freedom and security constantly balanced, as they must be, but all of us must acknowledge that the world has changed. To protect our freedoms we have always to protect our people.

Mark Oaten: Like other Members, I start by referring to the events that took place in London during the summer and in doing so pay two tributes. The first is to the intelligence and police forces that handled that three or four-week period with great integrity and received much public support for their management of the process.
	Secondly, I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, who dealt with those difficult circumstances with great calm, not only at the time of the attack that killed so many people but also a few weeks later when the failed attacks took place in London. I also welcome the fact that, although he was busy and focused, he was courteous enough to include his opposite numbers in the discussions and to keep the Opposition parties briefed. That was an appropriate response and I am very grateful.
	The Liberal Democrats have always acknowledged, even during those long hours in January when we were debating the control orders, that there is a real threat to this country from terrorism. Our cross-party differences have been not about whether there is a threat to London and other cities but about the appropriate response to that threat. We remain convinced that the issues are serious and we do not in any way underestimate the need for a proportionate response. We accept that there is a terrorist threat.
	The issue has always been about the level and balance of the response to the threat. I have thought long and hard about our party's approach to the Bill. Any responsible politician wants to introduce measures that will make the country safer and it would be irresponsible not to look at measures that could make all of us safer as we walk through the streets of our cities. I was very taken with the Prime Minister's remarks, at press conference after press conference, about civil liberty and the principle of freedom that we should be able to walk freely without fear of attack. Of course we support that. However, as politicians we also need to argue for other freedoms and civil liberties and for the important principle that we do not hand the terrorists a backhanded victory by doing away with our strong principles of justice.
	When the bombings took place in London, people said time and again that they did not want the bombings to change their way of life. From that, I drew the conclusion that they wanted sensible measures to make their lives safer but that were not so draconian as to change the way they lived their everyday life.
	It was right that the three parties came together during the summer to try to achieve consensus. At that point, the public wanted their politicians not to disagree, but to work together and try to find a way forward. We made much progress in agreeing and signing up to three measures that are in the Bill and still have our support. However, during September, problems emerged, as the Home Secretary said, when the Government decided to go further than the three measures to which we had agreed.
	Our party felt that a wide, sweeping new offence of glorification was unacceptable, too hard to tie down in law and would infringe freedom of speech. We also felt that the principle of holding people for three months without charge was a step too far. It was at that point that the consensus began to fall apart. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has thought again about the provisions on glorification. The removal of the former clause 2 is extremely welcome, but will he go one step further and address the use of glorification in clause 21? It seems to be very much used as it was in its previous incarnationas one of the grounds for banning organisations. If there could be the same movement on the use of that word as occurred in clause 2, I should certainly welcome it. In substance, we support a large amount of the legislation. We are left with one significant objection about which I shall speak later.
	I reiterate the point I made in my intervention. I understand the Home Secretary's irritation at our decision not to support the Bill this evening. I repeat that we are determined to try to get consensus back on track in Committee. We want to persuade the Home Secretary and the Government that there are alternatives to holding suspects for three months. However, he needs to understand the strength of feeling about the issue in my party and why we felt that rather than waiting to show our objections on Third Readingif those provisions remain unchangedwe had to send the Government the strongest possible signal that, if things stay the same and the clause remains in the Bill, we could not support it. That is why we felt that it was right to make that stand tonight. However, our commitment to try to resolve the issue and our commitment as a party to support a changed and modified Bill on Third Reading remain.

Douglas Hogg: May I support the hon. Gentleman in what he has just said? If one cannot support the core measures of a Bill, one must oppose it, even though it will be considered in detail in Committee.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. The decision was difficult because there is much in the Bill that I support and much of it has been subject to talks. At the end of the day, however, I took a judgment and my colleagues agreedwe debated it at the party conferenceand we felt that we could not support a Bill that included such a provision. I would have found it extremely hard to abstain or to support something that included a provision with which I fundamentally disagreed. The honest thing to do in those circumstances is to take the position that we have taken. I regret only that it could be interpreted as our wanting to wreck the consensus. We do not want to do so. It is a principled position that we hold dear.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was opposed to a sweeping glorification clause and that he accepted that the Government had made a change by removing the former clause 2. Does he accept that clause 1 includes an element of intent and is he content with that?

Mark Oaten: In Committee, we shall want to look at the whole question of intent and when I talk about the indirect incitement provisions I want to look at how both intent and likelihood are built in, so I shall address those points when I get to that section of my speech.
	I want to deal with some of the measures that we support. First, we have long argued that acts preparatory to terrorism should be a criminal offence. We argued that when the Newton committee reported and when we were dealing with derogations from the European convention on human rights. We said that such an offence was a better way of getting suspects into court than holding them without charge. The provisions on acts preparatory have a clear level of intent built into them and that principle should run through the whole Bill.
	Secondly, we very much support the creation of a new offence of training for terrorism, although I want to flag up one concern. The Bill also includes an offence of attending a place used for terrorist training. It would be nonsense if, for example, journalists who attended a place of training as part of their investigative work fell foul of such an offence. We need to tidy that up in Committee.
	Thirdly, and more problematically, we support the idea of creating an offence of indirect incitement to terrorism. We support it because there will be occasions when people with some influence will be able to use either written or spoken language with the clear intention of encouraging others to commit a terrorist attack. That should be an offence in this country. The problem is that the clause, and the criminality of the statement, depend on the interpretation of a third party, not the statements themselves or the intentions of a publisher. It depends very much not on what somebody says but on how other people react to what they say. We have concerns about the provision, but we broadly support it.
	It would be extremely helpful if some safeguards could be included. At present, the offence is modelled on the proposal of the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism, which was signed earlier this year. Under that convention, there are two key safeguards: first, incitement must be intentional and, secondly, there must be the likelihood of a terrorist attack as a result. As we explore the matter in the next couple of weeks, it would be helpful if we could move back towards that model and build into the Bill those sensible twin safeguards that are already enshrined in the European convention on the prevention of terrorism.
	As I said, those matters have our broad support, but before I address our key difficulty with the Bill, I want to touch on the definition of terrorism itself. We have debated the way in which we define terrorism and it is my general view that the current definition is too wide. The Home Secretary helpfully wrote a note to the shadow Home Secretary and me yesterday in which he outlined his arguments for whybluntlyhe thinks that that definition is probably the best one in town and we should thus probably try to stick with it. He said that the definition was very close to that drawn up by the EU in 2002, but I am worried that there is an important difference between the Home Secretary's definition and that of the EU.
	Under the Home Secretary's definition, there could be circumstances in which animal rights groups and groups such as Greenpeace fall foul of terrorist legislation, as he acknowledged in one of his recent Select Committee appearances. The EU definition includes the phrase:
	extensive destruction . . . likely to endanger human life.
	Tagging on that additional phrase is helpful by making an attack on property or a field a separate issue. The EU phrase would clearly add an extra layer to the definition that would give confidence to people like me who are worried that the definition of terrorism being used is too broad. I am not suggesting that it would be easy to redefine terrorism, but the small EU addition would go some way towards improving our definition of terrorism, which we would all like to see better defined.
	I turn to our major concern, which the shadow Home Secretary outlined in detail: the provisions of clause 23. Why is the question of holding suspects for such a long time a key principle for this party? Article 40 of Magna Carta says:
	to no man will we deny or delay justice or right.
	That has been an established principle of our criminal justice system for some 800 years. That principle of liberty has been adopted across the globe. Indeed, article 40 of Magna Carta is the forerunner of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which says that
	everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.
	To put it simply, as long as we have had justice in this country, that principle has been at the heart of it.

Sadiq Khan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that 14 days is the limit, and that any period of detention without charge that was greater than 14 daysforget 90 dayswould be unacceptable to him and his colleagues?

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to give him a direct answer. We do not believe that there is a case for moving beyond 14 days. When we discuss how we move forward on the matter, we should not have some kind of auction for 90, 60 or 28 days. We wish to persuade the Government that there are alternative approaches that suggest that we do not need to go beyond 14 days.
	We have been cautious about the number of days for which a person may be held for decades. The police have the automatic power to hold individuals for 48 hours, with a possible time extension of up to four days for serious cases such as murder. A complex murder case is allowed a time extension from 48 hours to just four days. Of course, provisions passed in 2003 extended the time limit for terrorism cases from seven to 14 days. We have rightly trodden carefully when changing the time limits. The history of the changes shows that we have been cautious, which is why it is remarkable that it is suggested that we could suddenly smash that approach apart under the Bill and move to a 90-day period.

Peter Robinson: I am struggling with the question of 90 days myself, but several hon. Members' criticism of the Home Secretary has been unnecessarily harsh. I think that he has made a compelling case that more time is needed, especially when we consider the collection of video tape evidence. What alternative is the hon. Gentleman offering us to deal with the situation?

Mark Oaten: I am just coming to that part of my speech. Let me acknowledge that I think that the police have made a case. I shall go through the police's arguments one by one and outline how we could find an alternative measure.
	The police's arguments were neatly set out by Andy Hayman, the deputy commissioner, in a letter to the Home Secretary that he made public. In essence, it listed eight compelling reasons why we should move towards a time period of 90 days. Some of the problems could be easily overcome, while several points have merit.
	One argument was that suspects needed to be allowed time for religious observance. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that a person praying five times a day will hold up an inquiry to a great extent. Two of the five prayers take place before sleeping and after waking, when no questioning would take place anyway. This country's questioning system already allows a suspect a 15-minute break every two hours, plus an additional 45-minute break. Surely there is adequate time in the current system to allow for such observance.
	The police's second argument related to interpreters. I understand the Home Secretary's point that it might be difficult to track down interpreters for such cases, but surely there are other ways to solve the problem, such as training and finding new interpreters and using interpreters who are already involved in the immigration process. Is the problem with interpreters so real that we should be prepared to break such a strong principle? Surely the answer is no.
	A further argument in the police's list of eight was that there could be problems with clarifying a person's identity, but, believe it or not, one does not need a person's correct name before charging them. Indeed, it is an offence for people to withhold their names anyway, so that issue can be overcome.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Oaten: No, I want to move on. Actually, that is very unfairI give way to the hon. Gentleman.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are dealing not with ordinary questions of criminal jurisdiction, but terrorist activities that verge on being threats of war and could lead to public emergency, which is why the question of derogation arises? Does he also realise that there is a whole stack of case law on the matter, including the Lawless case in Eire in 1961, when an even longer time period than that contemplated was upheld?

Mark Oaten: I now wish that I had adopted the Home Secretary's approach on taking interventions from the hon. Gentleman, but I might be able to cover that point.
	I now turn to the four matters on which I have made it clear that the police have a genuine case. The police are justified in saying that it would be difficult to deal with forensic evidence, encryption, mobile phone records and the international data trail in a 14-day period. However, we think that there are other ways in which those difficulties could be overcome.
	The Bill creates the kind of offences that could be used as a tool to charge individuals within a 14-day period. I was grateful for the Home Secretary's acknowledgment today and during his appearance before the Home Affairs Committee that he wants to consider that matter. I acknowledge that there are two problems with moving towards that position. First, such lower charges could have bail attached. Secondly, it is currently difficult to interview someone after they have been charged. However, both those problems can be overcome. As the shadow Home Secretary said, there must be a way in which we can deal with those difficulties by, for example, changing guidelines under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to see whether or not lower offences should have bail attached. Making such changes, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is a lesser change than those that have been proposed. I believe that the Attorney-General is looking at these issues and, if we can speed up that review, it will be tremendously helpful in finding a way forward. If the Home Secretary suggested that changes were made to allow individuals to be charged with lower offences it could be argued that some individuals would not fall into that category, as they could not be charged with a lower offence. I find that argument questionable. If the police decide to arrest someone, they must have grounds and evidence for doing so. I find it hard to believe that there are circumstances in which such evidence could not be used to charge someone with an offence.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I commend to the hon. Gentleman the use of section 47(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which, coupled with stringent conditions such as tagging, curfew and reporting requirements, is a way of meeting his concerns?

Mark Oaten: I do not believe that that would be necessary, and I am outlining circumstances in which it could be avoided. However, there may be narrow circumstances where that proposal is relevant.
	There will be few occasions on which individuals cannot be charged with a lower offence. If the police had arrested someone but could not employ the evidence that they had used for arrest to charge them with an offence, a change in the Government's policy on intercept communication would be key. I accept that there is a narrow category where information from intercepts could not be used to create lower-order offences, which is why the Government should move to allow intercepts to be admissible. That would allow us to deal with the problem.

Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman is floundering, so perhaps I may be of assistance. The police can arrest someone if they have reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence. That does not have to be based on admissible evidence. If someone was held for two months at Paddington Green police station and, in his 15th interview, named a particular individual, the police could arrest that individual because they had reasonable grounds to suspect that he had committed an offence. However, that would not be evidence admissible in court. I hope that that makes it clear.

Mark Oaten: I think that I am grateful for that intervention, but I am not sure that it makes the position clear. I have argued that alternative offences could be used and that, with the use of intercepts, other individuals could fall into that category

Douglas Hogg: Should not the hon. Gentleman stress the fact that the essential vice is allowing the police to question people who have been in custody for weeks if not two months or more? Such confessions are inherently unsound.

Mark Oaten: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point, but I am arguing that someone could be charged with a lower offence or one of the new offences that we are creating. If such a charge is brought within 14 days, I support the police having the opportunity to continue questioning that individual. I do not completely agree with him, because doing so would be intellectually wrong. We are arguing that, having brought that initial charge, the police can continue to charge and work to achieve a higher offence at a later date.

Dominic Grieve: If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we will need a completely separate PACE code that provides much more limited time for questioning in any 24-hour period?

Mark Oaten: I could not agree more. Checks and balances are required if we move to the model that I have outlined, and PACE guidelines that acknowledge that changing process are obviously required.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mark Oaten: I will not accept any more interventions, because I wish to conclude.
	I wish to suggest another way forward to the Home Secretary. Even if the alternatives do not fit the profile of the individual whom the police want to hold and arrest, the right hon. Gentleman has the power of control orders, which we debated at length at the beginning of the year. While I find the way in which control orders are put in place problematic, I accept that there will be rare occasions when it is difficult to charge someone, and control orders are then a useful tool. If all the alternatives are tried, but none of the lower offences works, the use of control orders would be a better way to tackle the problem than holding individuals without charge for a long period. Those control orders, however, would be different, as the clear intention is to move towards a point where a charge could be brought. They would not be open-ended orders without any prospect of charge.
	In conclusion, it is clear that there is potential to find a way forward on differences that have emerged over the 90-day issue. I accept that the police have a compelling case in four instances, but I do not accept that that case should lead us to break many of this country's long-held principles. I hope that in Committee and on Report we can work with the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to find a sensible alternative. That is our commitment, but if the Government continue to pursue the prospect of holding individuals in this country without charge for three months we cannot, and will not, support those measures.

Tony Lloyd: The Home Secretary is right to remind us of the grave threats that our society faces from terrorism. Every Member of the House would be at one with him on that. However, the House has a duty to find a balance between measures that are necessary in an era of new technical challenges and new types of terrorism, and safeguards for the traditional values of our society and the legitimate rights of those who stand accused of certain offences.
	I was interested by various sub-debates that have taken place this afternoon. I distinctly remember, as some of our Northern Ireland colleagues may also recall, that one of the almost certain effects of the introduction of internment and detention without trial in Northern Ireland was to radicalise, and not in an acceptable way, a generation of those on the then republican side of the political divide. I speak from near-personal experience. It was a profound mistake by the Labour Government of the day, who introduced those measures.
	I say that not because the debate today is about the introduction of the same principles of detention or internment, but because we must measure the impact of the Bill not only in terms of the legitimate enhancement of the security of society, and not even in terms of its impact on those who come within its power, but in terms of its wider social impact if it is deemed not to be appropriate or proportionate to the challenge that we face. That is the problem that I see with at least two aspects of the Bill.
	The first relates to the better rehearsed arguments about the 90-day period of detention. Like many hon. Members, I feel extremely uncomfortable that the case has not been properly made that that length of time is necessary. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is being over-cynical when he says that the measure is a police bargaining chip, but we need a much more robust defence of their need for anything like that increase in the period of detention or for any increase at all, before the House accepts that they should be the arbiters as we, the House of Commons, seek to erode the freedom of our fellow citizens. That case has not been made today.
	As my hon. Friend observed, under existing legislation only two people have been held for 13 days, not the full 14 days. Both were charged at the end of that period. Although it is not possible to argue by extension that the period must be absolute and precise, that is at least an indication that so far the police have not found the present arrangements inappropriate for the type of activities with which they have had to deal. Things can change, but the case must still be better made.

Sadiq Khan: In support of that argument, does my hon. Friend agree that there have been 10 occasions when somebody has been detained for more than seven days but less than 14 days and released without charge, and in none of those 10 cases was the individual re-arrested at a later date when the police or the authorities had deciphered any encrypted computer data or any other data that had come to their attention? That supports the argument that there is no evidence for extending from 14 days to 90 days the period in custody without charge.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend helps me in the case that I am presenting. We need an intelligent debate and we need to consider whether the present structures are appropriate. The case has not been made for the legitimacy of the leap from 14 to 90-day detention for the police to interrogate suspects and obtain evidence. Therefore, I, like many hon. Members, share the concerns, and I hope that we will see a robust debate in Committee and during further proceedings on the Bill as we examine where the proper balance and test should come.
	The question of glorification troubles me every bit as much as the 90-day period. It is easy to dismiss this by asking, Are we not all against those who advocate the killing and maiming of others? But I want to remind the House that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said earlier, many of us have lived through periods in our political lives when we have not simply sought to explain but actively advocated the concept of armed force as a legitimate defence. I met someone in Guatemala many years ago who told me how, under the military Government at the time, he saw his father taken off a bus and told to hold his hands out, whereupon they were systematically macheted off, salami style, by members of the armed forces. That was a particularly brutal crime, and at the time it was a particularly brutal way of persuading me that it was legitimate to defend the ordinary peasants of Guatemala by recourse to the force of arms. I cannot run away from that view these years later simply because that country is now, happily, at peace. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) referred to the situation in Burma today, which, ironically and tragically, is parallel to that in Guatemala.

Mark Hendrick: rose

Tony Lloyd: I want to develop that theme further but I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mark Hendrick: Is my hon. Friend saying that basically violence is okay, it just depends which side one is on?

Tony Lloyd: Yes, I am saying that, and my hon. Friend has to face that directly. All but the pacifists in our society have always accepted that sometimes, very sadly, although we can use phrases such as as a last resort, faced with families being slaughtered in Burma, when the Burmese army are moving into the villages of the Karen people, when they are raping women and children and brutally murdering the whole population, when they are ethnically cleansing, it is not illegitimate to say that recourse to defence by force of arms is the only course available. We are pious and nonsensical if we pretend otherwise.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I agree entirely with the point that my hon. Friend makes, but does he agree that this Bill is even worse because one need not agree with the violenceall one has to do to bring oneself under the Bill's provisions is to express sympathy or understanding with those carrying it out?

Tony Lloyd: A number of my hon. Friends have already expressed such sympathy with the Karen people in Burma, so all of us stand guilty of that.
	I want to draw to the Minister's attention the Home Secretary's response to our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He asked specifically about people seeking to justify the non-human targeted attack upon, for example, the railway infrastructure. The Home Secretary's responseI hope that I do not misquote the spirit of what he saidwas that because that might result in the killing of people it would fall under the definition. I would go much further in any case and say that I can think of circumstances when I would not simply sympathise, but I might even be prepared to support and advocate on behalf of those who took up arms as their only legitimate defence.
	Hon. Members may say that I am making overly heavy weather of this point.[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) does not. But it is important to establish this, not simply to say that there are some circumstancesI say this in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick)where we would all justify the potential use of arms, but because it is incredibly difficult to move from those situations where we can to those situations where we do not do so.
	I can think of many circumstances in our society in which people can advocate something horrendous, such as the murder of another individual, but that is caught by the offence of incitement to murder. I think it would be caught even if the murder were to take place overseas, because it is possible to prosecute British citizens for murder that takes place abroad. So there is an argument that our present laws on incitement already cover the terms that are easiest to define.
	Then we approach the middle ground, which is the most difficult area. Here I may even agree with those who deplore the words of those who advocate violence in different parts of the world on behalf of causes in which I do not believe. The problem is, though, that I am not sure how the public interest is served in moving towards prosecution. We may say that we deplore the words of the most crazed exponents of violence, but what do we achieve as a society if we stop treating those individuals as objects of scorn and social condemnation and instead put them in prison cells, thereby making them martyrs? Experience from many different situations around the world shows that the way to radicalise young people or the population generally is by creating a sense of injustice through the arbitrary, or seemingly arbitrary, imposition of such imprisonment on those whose offence may be an inappropriate use of words.

John Bercow: Pursuant to the intervention by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), when I visited Burma last year I met children who had seen their parents murdered in front of them, and parents who had seen their children murdered in front of them, by the Burmese army, the Tatmadaw. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if I were publicly to express support for any initiative or campaign by the Karen National Liberation Army violently to overthrow the State Peace and Development Council, I would be caught by the terms of the Bill? If so, the Bill must be redrafted, because it is wrong.

Tony Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman's fears are correct. It is very difficult to get this legislation right, but we must do so, because if we fail we risk doing far more damage by imposing this law than we do in terms of enhancing the security of our own population or advancing the fight against terrorism more generally.
	I had a brief exchange with the Home Secretary about the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights. I am less certain than he is that the 90 days' detention is consistent with the convention, paragraph 3 of article 5 of which says that detainees
	shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.
	The 90-day period could well be tested, not only in our own courts but in the court at Strasbourg. We need a more robust response as to whether the Bill is compatible.
	I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety that I will be voting with the Government tonight because the Bill must be properly examined in Committee.

Douglas Hogg: I will return to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), because I agree with much that he said.
	This is a Bill that the House would do well to scrutinise with considerable rigour: first, because it was born out of crime and tragedythe recent events in Julyand Bills that are enacted so soon after such events are frequently seriously flawed; and, secondly, because it follows a raft of legislation that we have passed since 2000, in the shape of three substantial Acts. If these matters are so important, it is difficult to see why they were not included in that legislation.
	I am willing to concede that there are parts of the Bill that most Members would support, myself includedparticularly clauses 5 and 6, which deal with ancillary acts, and those clauses that deal with radioactive material. However, they are not the core of the Bill. One has to go to the core to determine whether to support the measure. When I go to its core, I find myself unable to vote for it. Indeed, I shall vote against it.
	Let me begin with clause 23, which enables a person who is not charged with an offence to be held in custody for up to 90 days. That is deeply offensive and, while it remains in the Bill, the measure should be opposed. There are several reasons why the provision is deeply offensive and I shall enumerate them briefly. First, it amounts to administrative detention, which we deplored when it was done in South Africa under the apartheid regime. We deeply criticise the state of Israel when it does that today. Secondly, it contravenes a basic rule of English law that a person should not be held in custody for extended periods unless convicted of or charged with a serious offence.
	There are two further points of a more technical nature. First, it is inevitable that the provision will bear most harshly on the ethnic and religious minorities in this country. They will say, with some force, that they are being treated in a discriminatory manner. That will increase the sense of alienation that one often finds in those communities. Secondly, I raise a point that I have previously put to the Home Secretary and to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). What weight can one properly place on confessions when they are made after an extended period in custody? To put the same point in reverse: what weight can one place on accusations by detained persons of third parties when they have been detained for extended periods? The 90-day provision opens up the prospect of serious injustice.
	Let me deal brieflyI know that others wish to speakwith clauses 1 and 2. First, the common law offences of conspiracy and incitement already cover much of the ground in the provisions. Secondly, the right of free speech should be safeguarded and fought for, even if it involves hearing things that one might find deeply offensive. For example, when Gerry Adams speaks of the glorious volunteers of the IRA, I am deeply offended. After all, the IRA murdered thousands of our fellow citizens, including four Members of this House, who were friends and colleagues of many of us who are still in this place. We are deeply offended when Gerry Adams speaks in those terms. However, I do not wish his words to be criminalised. When the BBC was banned from broadcasting such words, Labour party spokesmen rightly denounced the Government.
	It is better by far that bad men reveal themselves by their words and deeds so that they can be judged than that they suppress their true intentions and gain a reputation that they do not deserve.

John Denham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the lessons of that period of history was that members of the public who supported those views were better drawn into the political process as voters who sought representation in a democracy than they were as active supporters of terrorism?

Douglas Hogg: That is entirely right.
	Let me deal with the detail of clause 1. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I paraphrase because its language is complicated. It provides that an offence is committed by a person if that person publishes a statement, knowing or believing that those who hear or read it are likely to treat it as an encouragement to commit an act of terrorism The Bill defines the sort of statement that falls into that category as including every statement that glorifies terrorism, whether in the past, the future or generally, and that might encourage others to emulate such conduct. The Bill does not provide for intent. The provision is far removed from an offence of incitement with intent.
	Historians or those who write about the past will inevitably be caught by the legislation. Let us consider those who have written about the 19th century struggle of the Fenians against British occupation in Ireland, or the African scholars who write about the Mau Mau revolt against the British empire in Kenya, or the Greek Cypriots who praised EOKA in its struggle against the British Government.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend will also be aware that the Taoiseach of Ireland has announced that the Irish Government are to hold a military parade in Dublin to celebrate the Easter rising. Might that make the Taoiseach liable to arrest if he came to this country?

Douglas Hogg: Indeed, and he would be protected only by the rather doubtful intervention of the Government's in-house lawyer, namely the Attorney-General. And I would not commend that to him as a very safe bet.
	These are but examples among scores of cases that could be cited. All those struggles involved terrorism, and they were all successful. Most of the people who write about them glorify them, and it is quite likely that the people who read the articles and the history will be inspired to emulate them because they were successful.
	What about present and future struggles that involve the use of force? As the hon. Member for Manchester, Central asked earlier, what are people to do in states that have no democracy and where tyranny and oppression prevail? Are we to say that acts of violence are in no circumstances to be countenanced? Such acts of violence will often include actions that are undoubtedly acts of terrorism within the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. Do we really want people to be made criminals if they urge an armed insurrection against the military regime in Burma? Are we really prepared to say that people who say that Mugabe's regime should be displaced by force are committing a criminal offence? Is that really what we are bringing this society to?
	Let us consider the occupied territories. The Liberal Democrats will know that one of their number, now Baroness Tonge, expressed sympathy for the suicide bombers there. I believe that the Prime Minister's wife has done the same thing. They were but a step or two away from falling within the scope of clause 1. Do we really want to say that such people are criminals who are to be brought before the law and sent to prison? I find that an extraordinary proposition.
	It is true that there are safeguards in the Bill. We are told that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutionsor, in the case of an overseas terrorist, that of the Attorney-Generalwill be required for a prosecution.

John Bercow: That is not reassuring.

Douglas Hogg: No, it is not. After all, the Attorney-General, good as he may be, is nothing more than the in-house lawyer of the Governmentand let us not forget that that in-house lawyer provided the advice on which the Iraqi war was justified, contrary to the opinion of many of us who sit in this place.

John Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I have already given way twice.
	Let us not forget that, while the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions will regulate the institution of proceedings, they will not make lawful what is expressed in the legislation to be unlawful. They merely regulate the institution of proceedings. Consequently, free speech will be interfered with by the fear of illegality.
	Finally, we are told by the Home Secretary that the Bill is necessary partly to meet our commitment to the European convention on the prevention of terrorism, as established by the Council of Europe. That is plain wrong. What the convention in fact urges us to doI shall use its rather bizarre languageis to create an offence of criminalising the
	distribution . . . of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence.
	Intent to incite lies at the heart of the convention.
	Clause 1 of the Bill provides no element of intent. It is another example of gold-plating, and goes far beyond what is required under the convention, and far beyond what is acceptable in a democracy. So long as it remains in the Bill, the Bill should be rejected.

John Denham: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), with whom I find myself agreeing far more than is good for my sense of comfort.
	May I start by praising the Home Secretary for his general approach to the legislation and willingness to make himself available to Members, and particularly for the many hours that he spent in front of Select Committees, including the Home Affairs Committee? His approach to the issue gives me some confidence that useful legislation will be produced at the end of the process. I will certainly vote for the Bill tonight, although certain aspects of it need a rethink.
	It is important to get the Bill in perspective. The major changes needed to terrorist legislation have been made in previous Acts. Despite the dramatic claims that the rules have changed, this Bill is rather marginal to the issue of our security. The real battle against terrorism is not in the battle over legislation in the House but in the community and the country outside. It is in our policing, our intelligence, the development of community support, and crucially, in winning the hearts and minds of people at home and abroad.
	This is a long-term fight. Once terrorism is established, it takes years to get rid of. In my view, we will be extremely lucky if we are not facing attacks such as those that we have seen in London for the next 30 years. These are not, therefore, short-term, emergency measures. To all intents and purposes, they are permanent. The fight against terrorism does not lend itself to short-term initiatives. The public need to be reassured that things are being done, but they want to be safer.
	In parts of the Bill, the Government are betraying a serious misunderstanding of what is at stake. This is not a battle over what people are allowed to say; it is a question of how we win arguments. The key battle is for hearts and minds. We must persuade young British people from the Muslim community who feel angry about what is happening in the world, in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya, and who feel that in the west their Muslim lives are less valuable than others' and their rights less valued than others', that engagement in politics, democracy, public life and argument is the way to achieve change, not terrorism.
	Against us are the extremists arguing the oppositethat there is no way forward for them in western democracy; that it is a sham, an illusion and a dead end; and that terrorist violence is not only justified but the only way. We must be careful not to feed that argument. As the Bill stands, however, it is more helpful to the propaganda of the extremists than it is in winning hearts and minds.
	The Bill is drawn too widely. Let us draw briefly on the Northern Ireland experience. We banned the IRA but we tolerated Sinn Fein, not, in my view, because we thought that they were entirely separate organisations, but because we believed that it was better to draw the supporters of militant republicanism into a political process of democracy than to leave them supporting purely violent action. Today, there are organisations in the world such as Hamas. I hold no brief for it, and we have proscribed it as a terrorist organisation. Many people in our society, however, who totally condemn the London bombings, would see Hamas in a different light, as a product of the situation in Palestinesomething understandable, and for a significant number of them, justifiable; not just a terrorist organisation but one that takes part in and wins elections.

Louise Ellman: Would my right hon. Friend like to disassociate himself from the views of Hamas, and does he accept that Hamas's solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no Israel at all?

John Denham: I certainly do not accept Hamas's strategy of terrorism, or its vision of the destruction of Israel. However, we make a mistake if we believe that organisations such as Hamas are indistinguishable from organisations such as al-Qaeda. One of the problems with the Bill is that it condemns such organisations and support for them in precisely the same terms as those in which it condemns support for the London bombings or 11 September. It allows for no distinction. It bans Hizb ut-Tahrir. It is designed to do that, as we know from the Prime Minister. The language of that organisation is undoubtedly extreme, and its aim of establishing a Muslim theocracy is equally extremeand is extreme in the eyes of most Muslims to whom I have ever spoken. I have not, however, seen evidence that it is actively involved in the promotion of terrorism.
	Clause 17 includes international action. There is a set of Chechensnot the murderers of Beslan, but otherswhom the Russians regard as terrorists, but to whom this country has traditionally given asylum. Once the Act is operational, the Government will be under pressure to use it against them.
	Far from sharpening our attack on al-Qaeda and the extreme of international terrorisma terrorism that allows no possibility of compromise or engagementthe Bill blurs the differences. It allows the extremists, in arguments that will take place in communities, in gyms and possibly in mosquesbut probably not in mosques at allto argue that democracy is a dead end. They will say that it is not even possible to support people whom they regard as their brothers, and who are fighting occupation and winning elections, without being silenced. They will say that it is not possible to advocate a Muslim state without being silenced, and that it is not possible to be part of a resistance movement anywhere in the world without being silenced. They will say that the terrorist route is the only way. That is the argument that will be advanced in streets and communities up and down the country, and what we must ask ourselves is whether the phrasing of clause 1 will help us to win the argument for democracy and engagement.

John Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way of testing the rightness of such a clause is to apply it not to the immediate political concern, but to other organisations and other situations at other times when there is not the same emotional impact? It is pretty terrifying to think that it could be applied to enthusiastic supporters of freedom in countries where freedom is denied. We should therefore be extremely careful about accepting the clause, which is my reason for voting against it.

John Denham: I referred earlier to the support that I gave, openly and publicly, to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the early 1980s. Flawed though they were, that Government were a great deal better than the dictatorship that was overthrown by violenceviolence that the Bill defines as terrorism.
	My position explicitly acknowledges that the world is a messy and complicated place. Political violence arises in many circumstances, and we must understand each of them and respond accordingly. We used as a country to understand that to our fingertips. In many ways, the history of decolonisation is the history of fighters being turned into statesmen and the supporters of fighters being turned into members of political parties. As we know, it did not always work, but we knew that it had to be done. We had to win the arguments of engagement, of alternative ways of doing things.
	It is much simpler to say, We do not want to understand all the different situations. All we need to do is say that this is wrong. That is what the Bill seeks to do, but I have to say that such simplicity will not work. If the Bill had the limited objective of stopping indirect incitementdirect incitement is already coveredof people living in this country to take part in terrorist actions, here or abroad, that involve the deliberate targeting and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, I would have no problem with it. I would have no problem with a Bill that drew the line where it needs to be drawn: between what the Home Secretary described today as indiscriminate terrorism, or what could be described as nihilism, and the much wider and more complicated set of political movements that sometimes use violence in various circumstances. But it does not do that, and I am worried that it betrays a profound misunderstanding of the problem.
	I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for acknowledging in this debate, and beforehand in discussions, that we need to look at alternative definitions of terrorism, and we will doubtless return to this issue at greater length next week in Committee. However, I do not share the view, which he circulated to the Opposition spokesmen and to me in my role as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that the other definitions on offer are no better than that in our legislation. First, there are significant differences between them. For example, there is a significant difference between the Council of the European Union framework decision, which uses phrases such as seriously intimidating a population and
	seriously . . . destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country,
	and our own legislation, which talks about
	serious violence against a person
	and serious damage to property. The threshold is much higher.
	I am no international lawyerin fact, I am not a lawyer of any sort, for which I regularly give thanksbut perhaps equally significant is UN Security Council resolution 1566, which clearly locates terrorism primarily in terms of action against civilians. It also refers to criminal acts in a way that, I suspect, excludes genuine liberation movements and genuine violence against oppression. We could also use wording such as the following:
	any action . . . that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.
	That passage comes not from any international agreement but from the report of the high-level working group that was prepared for the UN summit on its 60th anniversary last month.
	Although such a definition would certainly catch the indiscriminate terrorist attacks on civilians of organisations such as Hamas, it would none the less draw the line in the right place. It would send a political message about exactly what it is that we are trying to tackle. It is a line that any reasonable personincluding those in the Muslim community on whom we are relying to win the argumentcannot possibly be against, whatever they might think about the situation in Chechnya, the middle east or Kashmir. Killing civilians indiscriminately for political purposes is wrong, and that is where we need to set the argument. I hope that we can return to this issue in some detail next week, and build on what the Home Secretary has said today in order to deliver an improvement to this part of the Bill.
	I agree with what Members in all parts of the House have said about intent, and I hope that we can deal with that issue. I shall largely leave aside the 90-day issue, given the limited time available, but with the right combination of procedural safeguards and a perhaps more realistic assessment of the time that the police genuinely need, we should be able to reach agreement on this issue. I look to next week's debates to provide such agreement.

Richard Shepherd: I agree in great measure with the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). His words encapsulated a particular concern of mine. He said that he thought that this proposed legislation is essentially marginal in the fight against terrorism, and the House should pause to consider that point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out the extent to which we have legislated in recent years to meet what is clearly an exigency and a massive concern to those whom we represent: the eruption of legislation that fails to deal with the dangersif we take the Home Secretary's view on this issuethat we face. When examined, the question of necessity arises. What is so necessary about this legislation? It is difficult to put one's finger on the essential element that underpins the conclusion that it is necessary to place restrictions on our freedom of speech.
	We must bear in mind the various offences of incitement already in UK law. Incitement to violence, including terrorist violence, is already a criminal offence, as is incitement to commit an act of terrorism overseas, by virtue of section 59 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Solicitation to murder is an offence under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and incitement to racial hatred is a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. A wide range of criminal offences is already available. Why, then, is a new offence of encouragement of terrorism, including by its glorification, necessary?
	I am not sure that I have grasped the Home Secretary's arguments at all. He told the Home Affairs Committee that the problem was that
	the current law of incitement essentially deals with a very particular event, which an individual committing an event is incited to commit, for example to commit a very particular act in a particular way . . . that means it is difficult to prosecute in the more general circumstance where an individual organisation is inciting in general but not linked to a very particular crime.
	Like the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, I am not lawyer, but in the Regina v. El-Faisal case of 2004, the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of a minister of Islamfor soliciting murder under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and for incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986for having made audio tapes urging Muslims to fight and kill, among others, Jews, Christians, Americans, Hindus and other unbelievers. In the course of its judgment, the Court of Appeal explained the great width of the offence of soliciting to murder:
	The offence of soliciting to murder is contained in s. 4 of the 1861 Act which states:
	'Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen's dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.'
	That amounts to a more severe penalty than is envisaged by the Home Secretary.
	The scope of the behaviour sufficient to constitute the offence was classically given more than 100 years ago by Lord Huddleston, who provided an interpretation:
	The largest words possible have been used, 'solicit'that is defined to be, to importune, to entreat, to implore, to ask, to attempt to try to obtain; 'encourage', which is to intimate, to incite to anything, to give courage to, to inspirit, to embolden, to raise confidence, to make confident; 'persuade' which is to bring any particular opinion, to influence by argument or expostulation, to inculcate by argument; 'endeavour' and then, as if there might be some class of cases that would not come within those words, the remarkable words are used, 'or shall propose to', that is say, make merely a bare proposition, an offer for consideration.
	I have troubled the House with a lengthy excerpt, but I am trying to demonstrate that the Home Secretary has not answered the core of our fighta national fight, which affects our constituentsand has not demonstrated why, given the present state of the law, clauses 1 and 2 are necessary.
	It is the wider implications that really worry me. Freedom of expression is perhaps the most important and basic right in a democracy. It did not come about casually, as we said last week in debating the Identity Cards Bill. It was a long march, and many of the acts that brought us to where we arethe Home Secretary has defined democracywere products that would be caught by the legislation in any event. That is the truth of the matter. Those who burned rickshaws would be caught, as I read the provisions. Is that really our intentto define our own democracy in those terms?
	In respect of the extension to the overseas provisions, the Home Secretary said that he had attended the ceremonyin St. Paul's cathedral, no lessmarking the 60th anniversary of the UN. The UN has nearly 200 members, but would we call all of them democracies, even though they all subscribe to the universal declaration of human rights? The hypocrisy is writ large, and the Home Secretary offers an extraordinary historical analysis when he claims that the movement in the world at large is towards democracy. However, that process of edging towards democracy has often been ignited by something else.
	Mr. Mugabe, through his country's membership of the UN, subscribes to those universal principles. People in other benighted countries suffer under the heel of cruel and vicious Governments, but do we tell those who rise up against their privations that anything that improves their lot is passable? No: the Home Secretary says that there is an ineluctable movement towards world democracy, but that is simply neither true nor real. In the pursuit of the Home Secretary's dream, we are asked to degrade and undermine some of our basic principles of freedom and democracy.
	It is the crafting of the Bill that worries so many of us. The principle behind extending detention to 90 days clearly nags at the consciences of many hon. Members. There has to be some form of compromise.
	I am grateful that the Government concede that the matter is important enough to be discussed on the Floor of the House. That allows all hon. Members to examine the proposals and express their opinion about it. Would to God that we had the same right in respect of so many of the instruments that come before us. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on their approach today.
	I think that the Bill will founder on the Government's flagship Human Rights Act 1998, that at some time it will be declared to be incompatible with that legislation, and that we will be back to where we started. There will come a time when the House has to determine whether an instrument of declaratory power is appropriate to the circumstances that we face. The Bill challenges our declaratory principles of freedom of expression and the proportionality of actions taken by the state to meet the exigencies that we face.

Michael Meacher: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and I agree with a great deal of what he said.
	As expected, the Home Secretary offered a very robust defence of the Bill. No one doubts that it was the Government's duty, and his in particular, to take all appropriate steps to protect the population against terrorism, especially in the light of 7 July, but any Bill designed to achieve that purpose must be tested against several criteria.
	Firstand this question was rightly posed by the hon. Gentleman for Aldridge-Brownhillsis the Bill a necessary addition to the existing corpus of law to prevent acts of terrorism in the UK? Last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that there was
	an enormous amount of legislation that can be used in the fight against terrorism.
	Indeed, the common law of incitement and the Terrorism Act 2000 already provide very considerable scope for prosecution. For example, the Bill's new offence of encouragement of terrorism has been justified on the grounds that it is intended to criminalise incitement to murder, yet acts of incitement to murder or terrorism are already punishable by life imprisonment. In fact, I suspect that any difficulty in bringing prosecutions at the present time is much more likely to arise from the self-imposed ban on admissibility of intercept evidence, which in my view should be lifted, than from the absence of a prosecutable offence. Therefore, it is not clear that the Bill passes the first test.
	The second test is whether the Bill is drafted tightly enough to catch those against whom it is allegedly directed and not those who may unintentionally be trapped by loose drafting? It is certainly to be welcomed that, after considerable concern has been expressed, the original proposal about glorification of terrorism has been dropped. But encouragement of terrorism is still drawn extremely broadly. In particular, as others have said, it allows acts to be criminalised without the need for intention by the person committing the offence. That is wrong and we must return to that next week.
	Moreoveralmost everyone has mentioned thisthe definition of terrorism under clause 1 is so wide that, contrary to what I think the Home Secretary was saying, it would criminalise calls to overthrow oppressive regimes where democratic means do not exist. In my reading of the definition, it would have caught those supporting the African National Congress and its methods in the fight against the apartheid regime. It would also have caught those calling for action involving, for example, violence against property, even if not violence against the person, against such regimes as North Korea, or Burmathat has been mentionedor Ceausescu's regime in Romania, and would have criminalised those who called for action against the Nazi regime in Germany.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it goes much further than that, because people who write about that in a historical sense are also caught?

Michael Meacher: Yes; I take that point and I support what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said on this. A definition that catches all those examples goes far too wide, and in my view the Bill does not pass that second test.
	A third key test is whether the Bill is drawn so loosely that it is likely to be used rather more indiscriminately in future years against persons who are not necessarily the ostensible targets? There is plenty of evidence historically that that has been the result of using wide definitions. The best example, of course, is the stop and search legislation. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has been mentioned, has been used against anti-war protesters and arms trade protesters as well as, most notoriously, the 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang.

Dawn Butler: On stop and search, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious concerns about the additional powers that have been offered to the Metropolitan police, and that they need additional training? We must ensure that they are given additional training because any abuse of those powers will cause a further deterioration in race relations in this country?

Michael Meacher: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but I would go further. The existing drafting of the stop and search legislation has led to its being used in a massive number of instances, but hardly any have led to prosecution, and there is suspicionwhich may well be foundedthat the legislation is being used by the police for wider purposes. I do not think that the fault is police training; it is the laxity and looseness of the original definition in the legislation.
	There are already suggestions that clause 10 might be used against animal rights protesters. Whatever one feels about that, whether one uses anti-terrorism measures against them or other protesters is another matter[Interruption.] This is arguable, but it is not being proposed that that is the purpose of the Bill.

Richard Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: I will give way for the last time.

Richard Shepherd: The Home Secretary confirmed on Monday in front of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it could be used against animal rights protesters.

Michael Meacher: That only confirms my point. The Bill is intended to deal with the problem of acts of terrorism, such as those which the country faced on 7 July. For it to be used in this much wider way is not sanctified, and it is for us here in Parliament to make that clear. However, those who might be affected include not only animal rights protesters, but those protesting against a revival of civil nuclear power, the replacement of Trident or genetically modified crops. It is no answer to say that prosecution could be pursued only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We should oppose the provisions because such catch-all legislation undermines the legitimacy of our anti-terror efforts precisely when we need to build a consensus around them. We should also oppose the insidious switch from defence of the state to defence of propertyor whatever the prevailing ideology of the Government of the time happens to bethat is apparent in the Bill.
	The fourth test is whether the Bill will undermine the rights and liberties of the free society that it is purportedly designed to protect. Everyone agrees that the balance between liberty and security is a difficult issue. By far the most contentious issue, as we have heard this afternoon, is the proposal that terrorist suspects should be detained for up to three months. That is more than 20 times the pre-charge detention limit for murder. It would allow the equivalent of a six-month custodial sentence without a charge being brought. Apart from the breach of the habeas corpus principles and article 5 of the convention on human rightsI disagree with the Home Secretary on that pointit is difficult to believe that the provision is really necessary. The Association of Chief Police Officers says that it is needed because of the potentially huge amount of material and the possible involvement of several jurisdictions, but the same argument applies to much white collar fraud, for which pre-trial detention is limited to only four days, or one twenty-fifth of the time proposed in the Bill.
	An interesting Foreign and Commonwealth Office document, which has not been mentioned today, makes comparisons between the proposals in the Bill and existing practice in other countries. In almost every case, they have a much shorter pre-charge detention limit than that proposed. Most terrorist arrests will usually follow months of previous investigations, which would allow large amounts of evidence to be compiled. If, occasionally, that were not soif an event had happened that the police were not expectinga much better compromise would be for a suspect to be charged under existing legislation and further charges added later, if appropriate. If that requires changes to the PACE code, so be it. The 90-day provision is the most serious in the Bill and it must be addressed.
	A fifth test is whether the Bill will alienate those sections of the population whose support is vital to isolate and defeat the supporters of terrorism. In that context, any measures that cause Muslims to be treated unfairlyor to perceive themselves as being treated unfairlywould be counter-productive. Legislation that is too widely drawn, like this Bill, might well make Muslims who strongly condemn attacks very wary of contacting the police and volunteering crucial information. They might feel that their legitimate but critical views of middle east policy would make them vulnerable to prosecution. Equally, the banning of organisations that do not advocate terrorism, such as Hizb ut-Tahrirhowever objectionable their views arewould drive them underground and make intelligence gathering more difficult. The Bill is not acceptable on that score either.
	My sixth and last point is somewhat wider, but essential. Does the policy behind the Bill take account of the wider underlying causes of terrorism and seek to redress them? That question goes a long way beyond a Home Office Bill, but it is a crucial component of our whole approach to terrorism. While in the short term we should certainly take all reasonable steps to protect our own security, we should never lose sight of the fact that one of the major roots of terrorism is the widespread perception of a fundamentally unjust and untenable political situation in the middle east. That recruiting ground for terrorism and al-Qaeda will be removed only when we have a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a reorienting of the fundamental

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his time.

William Cash: I fear that some of the discussion that we have heard this afternoon has perhaps gravitated rather more towards the experiences of those in the criminal law than towards the questions that lie at the heart of the Bill. This legislation is about terrorism, and I would make the case strongly that we verge closely in that context on the problems that exist in a state of war, as I indicated in an earlier intervention. During our discussions on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in March this year, there was a failure to appreciate that the most important thing was to achieve a balancesecurity on one hand and liberty on the other. I am bound to say that I have more sympathy with the Government's position in respect of the Bill than do some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	The criteria applied under the Human Rights Act 1998 and, indeed, in respect of the European convention on human rights must be regarded as a question of proportionality in the context of the threat to public order and public safety. Indeed, during the proceedings on the former Bill in March I took exception to the line that was then being taken by Conservative Front Benchers about our complying with the obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to control orders and terrorist suspects. I thought that profoundly wrong, and I continue to feel the same way about the application of the ECHR to the Bill.
	I would not want to give the slightest impression that I am in favour of taking away rights that I thought justifiable, as enacted by the House. Indeed, in a very short clause that I produced to the Bill in March, I said that nothing in any Act should stand in the way of
	a writ of habeas corpus or other prerogative remedy and . . . a fair trial in accordance with due process and the rule of law.
	I believe profoundly that, whether or not a person is a terrorist or someone who incites hatred or whatever else, that person should in no way be denied the opportunity to benefit from habeas corpus, the rule of law and a fair trial. Indeed, I had an exchange with the Home Secretary during those previous proceedings, and he said that habeas corpus would apply. There was some serious doubt about that at the time, but the reality is that, in the context of the Bill, the Government have dug themselves into a substantial hole in trying to have their cake and eat it.
	In my opinion, it is not possible for the Government to avoid tackling the problem of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to such legislation. Indeed, Lord Carlile made it clear in a well considered report that he thought that a period of up to three months was justifiable on the evidence that he heard. I hope that we hear more during our proceedings about what that evidence amounted to. Lord Carlile thought that the Government would have serious problems preventing the Law Lords from eventually ruling against provisions in the Bill on the grounds of the Human Rights Act. We have seen that after enormous amounts of time and delay, Belmarsh and other cases were taken to the courts and the Government's declarations of compatibility with the Act were struck down.
	The remedy is simple. If the Government want to legislate for a specific purpose, based on evidence they provide, and if they can make a case on the Floor of the House and in Committee to justify an extension of the period to three months or a bit lesswhatever emerges from the debatesthey should seize the nettle and, as I suggested earlier, include the provision:
	notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998.
	I do not need to take the House through the case law, save to say that Lord Hoffmann made it perfectly clear in a case a few years ago, as did the Lord Chancellor when the Human Rights Act was going through the House, that the 1998 Act can be amended by unambiguous subsequent legislation passed in the House. Just as it is the first priority of the Government to ensure the protection and security of the nation, so it is the first principle of the House to make up its mind about the legislation it wants to ensure that protection. That may bring us into dispute with some members of the judiciary, but it would not be for the first time over the many centuries that the House has existed. I profoundly believe that we must legislate according to the proper requirements of protection of the nation and that that should be decided in Parliament and not in the courts. That is the first and fundamental principle.
	Secondly, I want to refer to the report of the Gardiner Committee in 1975, when similar problems emerged with regard to the protection of the nation from IRA terrorism. The report stated:
	Some of those who have given evidence to us have argued that such features of the present emergency provisions as the use of the Army in aid of the civil power, detention without trial, arrest on suspicion and trial without jury are so inherently objectionable that they must be abolished on the grounds that they constitute a basic violation of human rights.
	I remind Labour Members that that was a Labour Lord Chancellor in a Labour Government. The report continued:
	We are unable to accept this argument . . . The suspension of normal safeguards for the liberty of a subject may sometimes be essential, in a society faced by terrorism, to counter greater evils.
	As I made clear earlier, it is essential that if the period of time is to be extended beyond 14 days, there should be no possibility of not holding a serious review by a senior judge of the circumstances in which the person is being held. It cannot be left to district, or even circuit, judges. The cases would be few and far between, so fair processfair trial and habeas corpusmust be reinforced as the most fundamental principle on which we rely. However, that does not mean that terrorists or suspected terrorists should be given a more privileged position than they deserve.
	There are extremely good reasons why the Government must take the ultimate responsibility for such legislation, but they must also act responsibly. On the whole, the legislation is right, although I am slightly worried about the definition of the glorification of terrorism, but we can look into that at a later stage. There are ways of dealing with the questions about trial and detention and, with respect to some of my hon. Friends, they should not be too worried about an arbitrary time of 14 days.

Chris Mullin: Let the record show that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was the first hon. Member on either side of the House, either by way of intervention or in a speech, to speak in support of the Bill.

Mark Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Mullin: Not just yet, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	I intend to direct my remarks solely to the proposals for 90-day detention. I say at the outset that I realise that, with the arrival of the suicide bomber in the United Kingdom, we face a wholly new form of terrorism. I accept that we have an obligation to provide the police and security services with the tools that they need to deal with that, and I acknowledge that a difficult balance must be struck between the protection of the suspect and the liberties of the subject. I accept all those things, but do not believe that a case has been made for detaining suspects for up to 90 days. What is more, the provision will lead to unintended consequences that could store up a lot of difficulties for when the Bill is implemented.
	As I said when I intervened on the Home Secretary, it is unfortunate that the Government have uncritically endorsed what I still believe to be the police's first throw of the dice. The police did not think for a moment that they would get 90-day detentions. The request was their opening shot in what they perhaps thought would be a process of negotiation, so they would have been as amazed as most hon. Members who have spoken that the proposal was uncritically endorsed.
	I oppose the 90-day detention because there is a danger that the power will be abused, whatever safeguards we try to put in place. The overwhelming majority of terrorist suspects are released without charge. Of the 895 people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 up to 30 September 2005, only 23 were chargednot convicted, but chargedwith any form of terrorist offence. Some 300 others were charged with other offences, some of which were quite minor, and 496 were released without any charge at all. Under the Bill, it would have been possible to hold those 496 people for up to 90 days instead of up to 14 days, as can be done at the moment.
	With the best will in the world, the police will be tempted to string out the process. If they do not have to work their way through a big pile of documentation and other evidence quickly, they might wait 30 or 40 days before even getting round to starting to do that. I am not suggesting that that would always happen, but it is a reasonable supposition that it will begin to happen in some cases over time.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend admitted that suspects were not kept for longer than 14 days in most instances. If they are not being kept for longer than 14 days, why should the police string out the process for up to 90 days?

Chris Mullin: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, that point rather rebounds on him. If it has not been necessary to detain anyone for more than 14 days so far, it is a rather large leap to say that we now urgently need a 90-day provision.
	If a time period of 90 days is now essential, why, when the police were last consulted only a little over two years agoterrorism had been with us for some time by thendid they ask for a rise from seven to only 14 days? I do not understand why their request has suddenly leapt from 14 days to 90. If they had asked for a more modest increase, I could engage with the argument.
	When I looked up the way in which the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), justified the extension from seven days to 14, I noticed that some of her reasons were remarkably similar to those cited in assistant commissioner Hayman's letter. The points about the need to study computers and technology were made almost word for word. I accept that other considerations have emerged since then and that there might be a case for extending the limit, but not to 90 days, for goodness' sake.
	Some Members have said that Lord Carlile endorses the proposal. I accept that he does so in his report, but not with any great enthusiasm. He does not endorse all the proposals in assistant commissioner Hayman's letter, and dismisses some of them explicitly:
	I do not regard extra time for interviews as being a sound basis for the extension of the time period . . . the reality is that most suspects exercise their right to silence.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will note that the Bill justifies extending the period solely to facilitate further questioning.

Chris Mullin: Indeed. That brings me to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Courts may find it difficult to convict on the basis of admissions or accusations that emerge after 20, 30, 40 or 50 days in custody. That may be an unintended consequence of the measure and may lead to some people walking free who should not do so. I take no comfort from the safeguard that a district judge should approve detention at regular intervals. I have a little experience in this area and, in the past, many members of the judiciary, both senior and junior, have proved remarkably gullible in believing whatever nonsense was put before them by the Crown and, in some cases, by the police. The words national security have only to be breathed for some district judges, magistrates and even High Court judges to roll over and have their tummies tickled. With the best will in the world, it is difficult for a judge, however senior, to turn down a request from a Crown prosecutor who tells him that the detention order is essential and that the world could be blown up tomorrow unless he renews it.
	I remember a former Bow street stipendiary magistrate, a man of great experience, saying on his retirement that he could not recall a single instance in 30 years of a policeman in the witness box exaggerating in the slightest. I accept that things have changed a little, but that gives a flavour of the difficulties that we will encounter if we let district judges deal with the problem. The Home Secretary will concede that it must be a High Court judge at least. Indeed, that must be one of the concessions in my right hon. Friend's back pocket, and it would be nice if he conceded the point in the Commons rather than the other place.
	Some say that we should place our trust in experts, and that the experts who track down terrorists have a complex job, so we should listen to whatever advice they give us. I certainly listen with respect to anyone who has that difficult job, whether they are in the police or the security services, but I do not endorse blindly or automatically whatever they say, because in years gone by experts have been known to be spectacularly wrong in terrorism cases and other matters. In the mid 1970sthe situation then has a bearing on today's situation they caught the wrong people for all the main terrorist bombings. A total of 18 people were wrongly arrested. Some of those experts and High Court judges still argue in private that all the people who were captured in the '70s were guilty. They are still in self-denial and labour under a massive illusion. My message is therefore, Put not thy faith entirely in experts.
	I hope that we will not go down the American road.

Graham Stuart: rose

Chris Mullin: Forgive me, I have only three minutes left.
	In many respects, the Americans have thrown away the rule book when it comes to dealing with terrorism. Some hon. Members will be familiar with the process of extraordinary rendition, whereby terror suspects are kidnapped and franchised out to countries where torture is routine. I do not want to see us starting out down that road. I do not suggest that it would ever happen in this country. I am sure that it will not, but it should be a warning to us.
	So, too, should the shooting of the unfortunate Brazilian gentleman in Stockwell tube station. I understand how these things happen. I well remember the atmosphere in which it took place, but it is when tensions are at their highest that we need to have safeguards in place. Was it not instructive that we subsequently learned that, the day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Commissioner had quietly written to the Home Secretary and asked that there be no independent inquiry into the shooting? The Home Secretary rightly rebuffed him. Indeed, the law requires that there be such an inquiry. Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, a man held in great respect is, relatively speaking, a liberal. If he would go down that road, one can only wonder how someone of a less liberal disposition would react in those circumstances.
	That emphasises the need for us always to be on our guard and to leave no loopholes in the law when it comes to inserting protections and making sure that they are watertight. I am in favour, as I said at the outset, of making the police and the security services as effective as possible in the fight against terrorism. I am not against some of the measures in the Bill, providing they can be justified, but there must be a bottom line. Although I might be persuaded to go along with a modest extension of the powers of detention, it will not be a very large one. We are making a mistake if we endorse the full 90 days or anything resembling it. Judging by the mood in the House tonight, I feel sure that the Government will want to compromise in the end. I look forward to that day.

Elfyn Llwyd: Many of us are nervous about the Bill because we have seen how the 2000 Act has been operating out in the field, so to speak. A cricketer on his way to a match was stopped at King's Cross and questioned under section 44 of that Act about his possession of a cricket bat. Police thought he might be travelling to Scotland to cause trouble at the G8 summit.
	Emily Flynn, a 24-year-old woman, was detained under section 44. She stated:
	They questioned me, searched my bag, read my notebook, and threatened to take me inside to strip search me. 'You have to admit,' said officer 216738who could legally withhold his name . . . 'that you couldn't be searched by a better looking bloke.'
	She has no redress, apparently, after that incident.
	I speak on behalf of Plaid Cymru and also the Scottish National party. Clause 1 deals with the encouragement of terrorism. We are concerned about the way in which the clause has been drafted. The requirement that the accused knew or believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that other members of the public were likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to commit terrorist acts looks fairly reasonable, but it is not good enough. Without a more specific definition, the offence is likely to have unintended consequences, one of which, I can readily see, is the inhibition of free speech. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to create such a wide offence that will require reliance on the discretion of the prosecution as to its appropriate use.
	We have heard about the Cherie Blair and Jenny Tonge test. I will not go over that again, but suffice it to say that many worthy causesand, I regret to say, many hon. Memberswill be outlawed if the Bill goes through in its current state. The law must be accessible, and those affected by it must know exactly what it prohibits. That must be formulated with clarity, so that those affected understand it and regulate their conduct according to the law.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman find it difficult to explain what the law would mean in this case, because not only would the speaker not have to have an intent to cause this, he would have to be telepathic in order to discover what someone might think if he spoke in that way? Many of us find that our speeches are not entirely understood, however clear we try to make them, but this makes speechifying almost impossible when we are dealing with circumstances as terrible as, for example, the fate of the Palestinians, the way in which they have been treated, and the way in which so many countries now suffer under the heel of dictators. I find it very difficult to know how one would measure one's words in this way.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is spot on, and I know he gains support from throughout the House for what he has just said.
	The dangers of allowing clause 1 to continue unamended stem from its broadness and vagueness of definition, the lack of any intent, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and the lack of any sense of the certainty essential to a fair and credible criminal justice system. People will be unaware of the consequences of their actions, as he said, and have no control over how their words or publications might be interpreted. We are on very dangerous ground at the moment. Liberty, for example, believes that this offence is totally unnecessary anyway, because there is sufficient criminal law allowing prosecution of those who incite terrorism, a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made well earlier. If there is to be any new offenceI do not believe that there should be oneit must have at its core the element of intent.
	Furthermore, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, anyone arguing for deposing brutal dictators anywhere in the world at any time would be guilty of a breach of clause 1. If this offence had been on the statute book a few years ago, it would have caught dissidents against Saddam, and it would certainly catch anyone calling for the deposition of Robert Mugabe.

John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the mistake that the Government are making is that they fail to recognise what I had thought by now was fairly widely acknowledged, namely that there is a difference between a terrorist on the one hand and a freedom fighter on the other? The differences are twofold. The freedom fighter is fighting for something that in any conceivable sense can be described as freedom, and he is doing so in circumstances where there is no credible alternative because he is operating within a closed political system. Surely the Government understand that proposition.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes that point extremely well, but what is insidious is that even support for that kind of action will be criminalised in this country, and he and I and others may find ourselves before the courts in short order.
	Clause 8 relates to being present at a camp where terrorism training is taking place. That again is a difficult matter. I am sure that no sensible person would find themselves in such a camp, but again in that instance there is no actus reus and no mens rea; it becomes an absolute offence. A person in such a camp might be a bit slow on the uptake and not have picked up on what was going on, but if one is there for whatever reason, that is itseven years, thank you very much. Again, that is extremely dangerous ground. Will we be breeding terrorists rather than inhibiting them by going along this particular road?
	An offence is created by just being in a place at the wrong time, with no intention whatever. It is guilt by association. That can never have any place in the law of England and Wales, and it should never have any place at all. Clause 8 will undoubtedly breach article 6 of the human rights convention, and it is impossible to see how such a principle could sensibly form the basis of new criminal law in the UK.
	All Members have been concerned with clause 23, which extends the period of detention. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) observed, there has never been a case where anybody has been held for longer than 14 days, so why do we need 90? Why not make it 190, or 300, while we are at it? The whole thing is ridiculous. The first question is whether we need an extension. My view is firmly that we do not, but let us be reasonable and open to argument in deciding whether to agree to some form of abridgement.
	I am not at all happy with a district judge reviewing the process, because some are prone to accepting one version of the facts and one only. I am not even sure about the nature of the review. Will the detained be represented? Will they know what is being said in proceedings held in camera? Is the detained entitled to be represented, or are we to have another Special Immigration Appeals Commission situation in which absolute balderdash is dished out before the court and nobody has a chance to challenge or even evaluate what is being said?

Graham Stuart: Regardless of the seniority of the judge who conducts the review, he or she is being asked to look at evidence that has not yet been found. It is almost impossible for the judge to make a proper assessment, so protection cannot be put in place.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is right. And how can one challenge whether the process is happening within a reasonable time scale, given that a person is being detained? All those points need to be considered.
	The provision may have come about because of the press release by the Association of Chief Police Officers within a week of the awful occurrence in July. As has frequently been said, if we rush into legislation, we often, if not always, get it wrong. If we rush into this legislation, we will get it wrong big-style. It may act as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism and will certainly alienate large sections of our societythe very people we need on our side in such times. It is extremely dangerous, and we need to reflect far more on what we are doing. In the round, most of it would be covered by existing legislation in any event and is therefore, to use the famous parliamentary word, otiose. We need the current law to be properly enforced.
	I have made my point clear. I do not believe that there is a case for extending the 14-day period. Under section 47(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a person can be bailed during the investigation to come back to the police station. He or she can be tagged or put under curfew, and surveillance can take place. Reporting restrictions may be followed. All that is preferable to holding somebody in what might be termed administrative detention, with all the problems that we saw in Northern Ireland when that occurred over there.
	We do not need this insidious part of the Bill. We do not need to alienate sections of our community. When all is said and done, we are trying to ensure freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy, all of which are under attack in this Bill. We must all help to identify a more proportionate solution.

Robert Wareing: No Member of this House would in any way deplore measures to prevent terrorism occurring in our country. One of the reasons many of us voted against the war in Iraq was that we realised that it would make our country even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In my view, the Bill is an excellent example of legislation that has been introduced in a knee-jerk reaction.
	The Government have to show that they are macho about the terrorist threat. We have heard assurances from the Home Secretary that the 90 day detention provision and the other clauses will be used only against suspected terrorists. However, we heard those assurances when the Terrorism Act 2000 was considered, but they did not prevent the arrest of Walter Wolfgang, after he had been removed by thugs from the Labour party conference, underbelieve it or notthe Terrorism Act. A refugee from Nazi oppression was arrested under the Terrorism Act. I am not therefore comforted by the assurances that we have been given this afternoon.
	Cherie Blair's statement has been mentioned several times. I signed the early-day motion to defend her from attacks in the press. If the Bill had been law and we had expressed that view in the country, we might have been affected by its provisions. It is no use people shaking their heads. I have visited the west bank and seen the oppression under which the Palestinian people live. I can understand why there have been suicide bombers there, although I do not understand it in this country. Let us imagine that a radical Palestinian heard a statement by Cherie Blair or Jenny Tonge. He might become even more radical. I am sure that it could be proved that statements by people from this country tipped the scales so that a person became militant and involved in the terrorist acts that we all deplore. That could apply to the statements that I mentioned.
	The Bill contains much that is objectionable and much that I appreciate. However, it includes little that is not already covered in statute or common law. The means for tackling the terrorist threat already exists. Indeed, the Government have been successful in dealing with extremist clerics, although they have some difficulty in deporting them, but that is another matter. They have done all that they could to deal with those who were rightly arrested because of their blatant statements, which were a spur to terrorists.
	Let us imagine that the Bill had been on the statute book some years ago, during the Thatcher Administration, when the Prime Minister expressed support for Pinochet and described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Many of us went on the streets to support Nelson Mandela and the fight against apartheid. I was the chairman of the Merseyside committee for solidarity with Chile after that other 9/11 in 1973. If the Bill had been law, perhaps we would have been in prison. Let us picture the situation: Cherie Blair in prison, me in prison, and, if her husband had come out in her support, I might have shared a cell with the Prime Minister. Heaven forbid, but it might have been possible.
	One of the great difficulties with the Bill is its lack of a definition of terrorism. Many hon. Members have alluded to that, but I believe that the definition given to terrorism is whatever the Government of the day believe terrorism to be. The Thatcher Administration thought that it was terrorism to attack the Pinochet regime or apartheid South Africa.
	I do not know what the Government consider to be terrorism. I am sure that they do not believe that tackling terrorism includes getting rid of an 82-year-old man at the Labour party conference. They do not really believe that, do they? Could not the legislation also have been used against the Greenham Common women? Were they terrorists? If someone at a CND demonstration leaves the rest of the crowd and tries to cut through the wire fence to get into an American air force base, is that terrorism? Such people could be pursued under this Bill.
	I realise that the 90-day detention is an important issue, but I do not want to go into the details of the proposal because many people have already done so. I am of course opposed to it. I note that the Conservatives have also expressed their opposition to that part of the Bill. On Second Reading, we vote on the principle of a Bill, and that provision forms part of the principle of this Bill. I see no reason for the Conservative Opposition to go along with the Government on this. It does not make sense.

Dominic Grieve: I accept that it is a difficult decision. Speaking personally, however, I have to say that there is enough in the Bill that I regard as important, and that tends in the right direction, to make me unwilling to stop the Government at this stage, when they have indicated that they are prepared to listen. Of course, if they do not listen, and if the legislation remains substantially in its present form, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not be able to support it on Third Reading.

Robert Wareing: I realise that that case has been made, but the vote this evening is on this Bill, and clause 23 is enshrined in it. That clause deals with the number of days for which a person can be detained. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent: there are other issues in the Bill. However, we might want to tell the Government to go back to the drawing board. But is that needed? As I have said, they already have enough powers to take the action that they need to take, and they have done reasonably well in dealing with the extremist clerics. If clause 23 is still in the Bill at 7 o'clock tonight, I can see no reason for voting for the Bill. I might abstain on a number of issues, but I do not believe that anyone whose conscience tells them to oppose the 90-day provision could possibly support the Bill. I hope that the Conservative Opposition will join those of us on the traditional Labour Benches in opposing it tonight.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was a little unkind to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) when he damned him for the grave offence of offering some measure of support to the Government whom we assumed the hon. Member for Sunderland, South supported. The reality is that even the hon. Member for Stone had some misgivings about elements of the Bill.
	No one in the House todaynot even the Home Secretarywants to have to deal with this kind of legislation. However, we do not find ourselves in the circumstances that we would like to be in, and we have to deal with the circumstances as they are. The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), rightly said that the Government had two competing duties. The first is their duty to protect the lives of the citizens of this kingdom; the second is their duty to protect those people's liberties. Because that tension exists between the two duties, the Government have to strike a balance. Most of today's debate has been about determining the point at which the balance should be struck.
	I said in an earlier intervention that I was struggling with one issue: in fact, there are two. First, the Home Secretary indicated that he was considering the issue of definitions, particularly in relation to the glorification of terrorism, and I hope that progress will be made on that in Committeeprogress must be made, as the current position is unworkable.
	Secondly, in relation to the 90-day issue, I intervened on the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in the hope of drawing out some answer to the problem that I faced. The Home Secretary has made a strong case about why additional time in detention is necessary. We are dealing with a new world, with different technologies. The proliferation of CCTV across the United Kingdom is such that when an incident occurs, the investigating authorities can view it from various standpoints and gather information. The issue of computers was mentioned, and it was not adequately dealt with by the shadow Home Secretary's answer that although it might take time to get around the problem of encryption, a suspect who withholds information should be charged and could be held on that charge. The reality might be different. Three people might be responsible for what was intended to be a series of suicide bombings, two of whom might have given up their lives in the process. Those two might be the ones responsible for the encryption, and no matter what legal redress one might have against the remaining person, he could not decode the files even if he wanted to. That is one of a series of different possibilities that would prevent such a solution.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman's point, which is a strong one, is that if someone refuses to provide a key to an encrypted piece of data, the shadow Home Secretary's suggestion is that he should be charged with the latter offence rather than the potential offence, which might be much greater.

Peter Robinson: I imagine that the shadow Home Secretary's argument is that that would be the holding charge in the first instance. That was much the argument of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who said that he had the answer to the 90-day problem: if people were brought in on suspicion of responsibility for some terrorist incident, some lesser charger should be made against them. I do not like that option, because, in effect, we would be giving the police a wink and a nod to concoct some holding charge in order to keep the suspect in custody. That is a worse set of circumstances, because the police are unlikely to withdraw that charge later, whereas if they find, as the Home Secretary suggests, that the person is not of value to them, they can be released. They will end up being charged with what might be, in Northern Ireland language, the duff charge. I have not heard today the answer to the conundrum of how we overcome the problems associated with the longer detention period.
	While I said that the Home Secretary had convinced me that a longer detention period was needed, he has not convinced me that 90 days is the right period and, to be fair to him, he has not tried to convince me of that. We need some evidence for why those 90 days are necessary. I would have thought that the provision of as short a detention period as possible is in the interests of anyone who loves liberty. Certain arguments have been advanced, and some thought that they would poke fun at the Labour Member who suggested that because the 14 days had not been exceeded, there should be no concern about a 90-day detention period. The reality is that the police will work within whatever length of time might be available to them.

Graham Stuart: If there is another atrocity, the red-top papers will call for blood, and the police will want to show that they are taking action. Is there not a danger that they will trawl the friends or associates of anyone whom they believe may have been involved, and that as a result such people will spend a long time in custody? People who have committed no offence may be convicted as though they had committed an offence that would normally carry six months' imprisonment.

Peter Robinson: That danger is certainly there, although I do not believe that the police act in that way. I believe that they will use the legislation sensibly. Perhaps I am far too innocent and trusting.
	Steps can, of course, be taken to ensure that supervision takes place. We have already talked about that. A High Court judge, for instance, might be appointed, and some parliamentary activity might be possible at the same time. Such measures could reduce, if not remove, the likelihood of what the hon. Gentleman has described.
	I do not doubt that if we give this power to the Home Secretary and, through him, the police, circumstances will arise in future in which it will be deemed to have been used improperly. Let us, however, return to the balance that the Home Secretary, and indeed the House, must determine. If the Home Secretary leans towards the side of protecting liberties rather than protecting lives, there will be no redress for the people who lose lives. If he leans towards the other side there will at least be redress, however unfortunate the circumstances may be. He has still to convince us of the length of time that is necessary, but he has made a good start by convincing us that a longer period is necessary.
	Yesterday I spoke in the House about a Bill dealing with electoral law. On that occasion, it was the Conservatives who had tabled a reasoned amendment. They said that they would vote against the Bill, although they also said that that would not destroy it, that it contained good things, and that they wanted it to proceed. They were pilloried by the Liberal Democrats, who said You cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. Now the Liberal Democrats have turned their argument on its head. They have left me completely confused, and I presume that they have left others confused as well.

Martin Horwood: Perhaps I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's confusion. A vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill. The principle that we are supporting is that there should be robust and effective measures against terrorism without the contravention of fundamental civil liberties. We feel that this Bill involves a fundamental civil liberty, and that we must therefore object to it.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman probably was not here for yesterday's debate, but the Liberal Democrat argument was that in Committee it would be possible to make the legislation into a satisfactory Bill. It is still possible, in my view, to make this Bill satisfactory. It is still possible to change the definitions, and it is still possible to make changes to the 90-day rule. Yet the Liberal Democrats are saying Throw out the Bill. I think that that is the wrong position to adopt, and it is certainly not the position that my hon. Friends and I will adopt.

Andrew Dismore: When I was appointed chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some may have thought that I was a poacher turned gamekeeper, in view of the efforts that I had made over the years to expose the activities of extremists. I started to ask questions about them as long ago as 1998. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on whether effective action was taken. I think that the answer is self-evident, given all that we have learned over the years about some of those concerned.
	My work in that regard has given me a perspective on human rights. It is important to look at both sides of the argument; one side is often overlooked. I believe that my Committee's ongoing inquiry into the Government's response to terrorism is looking at both sidesand I am pleased about the constructive way in which the Home Secretary has engaged with us on the issue.
	The attacks on 7 and 21 July themselves constituted gross violations of human rights. The murder of 56 innocent civilians, including four of my constituents, and the severe maiming of scores of others are not capable of legal justification. It is well established in human rights law that invoking human rights to justify the destruction of other human rights is itself an abuse of such rights and never attracts protection.
	Human rights law also imposes onerous positive obligations on states to take steps to protect the lives and physical integrity of everyone within their jurisdiction against the threat of terrorist attack. Where an attack has taken place, the state is required by human rights law itself to review the adequacy of the legal measures that it has in place to protect people from terrorist attack and to bring perpetrators to justice.
	The fact that attacks have taken place is highly relevant evidence in an assessment of the level of terrorist threat, which itself is relevant to the proportionality of any interference with human rights that can be restricted in the interests of public safety and national security. However, it remains the case that all measures taken by states to fight terrorism must themselves respect human rights and the principle of the rule of law. National rules may change, but the applicability of human rights rules themselves do not.
	My Committee will have reservations about much of the Bill's detail, and particularly about the breadth of its coverage, its definition of terrorism and the question of international comparators.

William Cash: As the newly appointed Chairman of this important Committee, does the hon. Gentleman rule outas I think he did on the Today programmeany amendment to, or repeal of, the Human Rights Act 1998?

Andrew Dismore: I do, because we can do what we need to do without taking such action. I heard the hon. Gentleman's earlier contribution and I agreed with much of itapart from that aspect.
	There is a big distinction between explaining and understanding a terrorist act such as a suicide bombing, and knowingly encouraging others to emulate that attack. We have to devise a wording that will deal with the particular problem of liberation movements I subscribe to the Home Secretary's view on this issue, but I realise that others do notand with the sort of statements that have so far gone unpunished by the law.
	On 20 April 2004 in Westminster Hall, I referred in particular to an example of such a statement: that made by Hassan Butt, an al-Muhajiroun activist, who said that close to 50 British volunteers had approached him for advice on emulating suicide attacks in Israel. When asked whether that meant suicide missions in Britain, he replied:
	'Yes, absolutely. When they're needed and when they're required . . . if they want to and they believe Islamically that it's allowed, then fair enough.' [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 14WH.]
	Under our existing law, that is not an offence, but under the Bill as drafted it would be. If we are to change the Bill's definitions, we have to do so in a way that does not exempt such appalling statements from potential prosecution.
	In the end, this issue comes down to the question of proportionality, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said earlier. In considering the question of compatibility with human rights legislation, we must bear in mind the balancing act between the infringement of individual human rights and the human right of society at large not to be blown up.
	Much of this afternoon's debate has focused on the proposed extension of the pre-charge detention period to 90 days, and I want to focus on that issue in detail. Two days ago, our Committee heard very cogent evidence from the police. We pressed them very hard on many of these issues, and I certainly recommend that all Members who have reservations about extending the pre-charge detention period read the transcript of that evidence. We heard from deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke, a senior hands-on detective with a number of years' experience of such cases, and from chief constable Jones, of the Association of Chief Police Officers. If Members read that transcript, many of the reservations that have been expressed today would be answered.
	The starting point is to say that we are looking at a maximum three-month detention period, not such a period as a matter of course. The police made it absolutely clear that they want to resolve cases much more quickly than that. We were told that they hope to resolve them inside seven days, never the mind the current 14-day period, or beyond. They were keen to make it clear that they did not want to keep coming back to Parliament for further extensions, if it were felt that the period granted by Parliament on this occasion

Clare Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Dismore: I will not, because my time will be eaten up.
	If the extension period proved inadequate, the police would have to ask for a further extension. They do not want to do that; they want to think strategically about their position.

Diane Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way on that?

Andrew Dismore: No, I will not, as I have only limited time.[Interruption.] Mr. Clarke made it clear that he envisaged a maximum of three months; he did not envisage three months becoming the norm. Even if it was only two days past the 14 days that got to the point of the charge, their requirement was met.

Diane Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Dismore: No, I will not. The reasons given by[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the hon. Member to decide whether or not to give way. I feel that I should protect his reputation for making short speeches.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I had my normal Friday length of time to speak, I would happily give way, but unfortunately I do not.
	People have questioned why the police need an extension of their powers, but Mr. Clarke provided two very good examples. The brief that we have received from the police so far refers in general terms to the ricin plot. However, Mr. Clarke told us that
	had we had this provision in 2002, the outcome of a recent court case, the so-called ricin trial, might have been very different. Mohamed Meguerba was one of the suspects in that case and it is likely that we would have held him or applied for his detention for sufficient time to find that his fingerprints were on the ricin recipe and he would have stood trial as a main conspirator in that case had he not fled the country. As it was, he was not available to stand trial.
	Basically, he did a runner and the police had no ability to hold him, although his fingerprints were there.
	Mr. Clarke provided another useful example of a current case in which the police foundby chance on the 13th day of detentioncrucial evidence on a computer, which led to the authorisation of charges from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The inference was clearthat if the computer had not been decrypted until the 15th day, the individual could have walked and probably done a runner. Mr. Clarke made it absolutely clear how much pressure is on the police, when he told us that officers are often
	sleeping on the floor . . . just ploughing their way through this vast amount of data.
	The police, he told us, would like to see
	criminal investigations . . . conducted in a slightly calmer and more ordered atmosphere than that.
	Many other examples and explanations are given in the evidence, fleshing out the views expressed by assistant commissioner Hayman. I strongly suggest that hon. Members read that evidence, as it answers many of the points that have been raised in the debate. If hon. Members have an open mindI suspect that many do not, but shouldthey will find that evidence to be significant. I was certainly sceptical before I heard the police, but adjusted my views after hearing them.
	Searches of domestic dwellings that the police have to conduct were another example, as was the length of time required to decrypt SIM cards. Obtaining evidence from overseas was another instance of where it could take the police a very long time. It is not, as some hon. Members have suggested, a question of resources. Mr. Clarke clearly said:
	It is not about resources.
	Rather, it was the sheer weight of material that needed to be analysed, focused into an interview strategy and then into an investigation strategy by the senior officer. At some point, he said,
	one person has to be aware of what is emerging from all this data. It cannot just be a cavalry charge.
	Some have mentioned lesser charges, but Mr. Jones made it clear that they are often not possible and he mentioned the risk of bail. In those circumstances, it would often not be possible to proceed.
	I was very pleased to hear that the police welcomed judicial oversight of the process. They do not want everything to remain in the hands of the police, but approve of robust judicial oversight to ensure as much transparency as possible. They cited some cases where district judges had not given the police what they had asked for. Mr. Clarke said:
	It is very often the case that we will ask for perhaps four or five days and the district judge will say, 'No, 48 hours and then I want to hear the case again.'
	That is a frequent occurrence, we were told. He also said that before the police can go to court and ask for a warrant, they often have to
	think very carefully about it and . . . consult the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether it is an appropriate course of action.
	Having said that, I certainly agree with the conclusions of Lord Carlile that further safeguards are required. I agree that a more senior judge would be appropriate in the circumstances. Personally, I think that the best way forward is to work towards an investigating judge systemcopying the continental European systemwhere a judge is in charge of an investigation, gives directions and views the evidence. I believe that having a system of specialist prosecutors with specialist judges working together will provide valuable safeguards. I hope that my Committee will look further into that option in the future.
	Three months may or may not be the right period for the extension, but the police have certainly made a very cogent casethey certainly did to my Committee. Many of us who heard the evidence last Monday were initially sceptical, but are now less so. For those reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall support the Government tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that only about 50 minutes remain before the winding-up speeches are due to begin. Sixteen hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, so it is not going to be easy to find time for them all.

James Clappison: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) suggested that the Home Secretary was trying to show with this Bill that he was macho. I believe that it was Mae West who said that, in her experience, men who were macho were not up to mucho, but I think that I can be fairer than that to the right hon. Gentleman.
	I fear that I am in danger of fitting the description given by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and of being the third hon. Member to speak in this debate to express explicit sympathy for the Home Secretary. I find myself in a great deal of agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who speaks on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. He has as much experience of these matters as anyone in the House, and we should listen to the sentiments that he expresses.
	That is not to say that we need not be vigilant in considering this Bill, which has been proposed in response to extreme events. We must always be vigilant in respect of legislation conceived in those circumstances. Moreover, the Bill comes hard on the heels of other terrorism legislation that may affect civil liberties, and we must also take into account the deeply flawed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords at present. All of that combines to give this Government a somewhat dubious record on civil liberties. Yet I find that, this evening, I will be passing through the same Lobby as those hon. Members who support the Government. That is because I think that, on the whole, this Bill is worth having, although it clearly needs a great deal of scrutiny. Two of its provisions, in particular, will need to be changed.
	Questions have been asked as to whether all of the Bill is necessary, or whether it is merely a repetition of existing offences. However, I find it hard to see any objection in principle to spelling out the law in relation to the preparation of terrorist acts, to training for terrorism acts, and to the attendance at a place used for terrorist training. Those offences need to be spelled out.
	I very much welcome the proposals for the proscription of terrorist organisations. I strongly agree with the general sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He made the valuable and powerful point that there are many things besides passing legislation that we must do to reach out to the hearts and minds of those communities in this country that we need to influence. I disagree with him, however, in respect of Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation is more than just a vehicle for eccentric views at the extreme of the political spectrum. Throughout Europe, it has a record of publishing vicious and violentand often violently anti-Semiticpropaganda. From time to time, it may seek to cloak itself in the guise of peaceful debate, but at other times it expresses hateful and hurtful opinions.
	I want to turn briefly to two aspects of the Bill that have attracted particular attention. Some of the problems associated with the offence of glorifying terrorism in clause 1it was originally clause 2have been ironed out as a result of the welcome concession that the Home Secretary has made, particularly in respect of the need for intent in the offence. Much more needs to be done, however, and matters as they stand are not satisfactory. That much was demonstrated by the interventions in the right hon. Gentleman's speech from hon. Members of all parties.
	We understand what the Home Secretary is trying to get at with the proposed offence but, although he may hit that particular target, I am afraid that he may hit too many other targets as well. In seeking to address the problem that he has identified, he is in danger of criminalising statements that should be part of normal political debate. For example, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to deal satisfactorily with suggestions from various hon. Members that expressions of opinion about Zimbabwe or North Korea, railway lines in Burma or statues in Uzbekistan would be criminalised by the Bill. That needs to be looked at again.
	Following the interventions that he accepted, the Home Secretary's final position was that he hoped that the provision would not have the effect that had been described, but I do not see why that should be so. For me, it remains possible that expressions of opinion of the type that I have described would be caught by the Bill. Therefore, I hope that there will be some movement in that respect.
	I turn next to the length of detention before chargea very serious feature of the Bill, which we need to deal with very seriously. When the anti-terrorist branch of the Metropolitan police makes a request for an extension of the period of detention permitted before charge, we must give it serious and sympathetic consideration. It is not a question of our doing automatically what the police request of us. The fact that the police have made such a request is surely not a reason for turning it down out of hand, and we must give it serious consideration.
	We are all aware of the fact that grave issues of public safety are at stake, as the letter from Mr. Hayman makes clear. We have to accept that we are facing a terrorist threat of a different order from that in the pasta threat which can have appalling consequencesand we must listen to the police when they tell us that they need therefore to intervene earlier to protect the public.
	Against that background we must give the proposals serious consideration. We should remember that Lord Carlile has broadly given them his approval, but we should also remember that a massive extension of the present maximum is proposed, that the present maximum was itself a very substantial increasea doublingon the previous limit, and that that increase was allowed only as recently as January last year.
	As others have rightly pointed out, when the change from seven to 14 days' detention without charge was made, all the matters that Mr. Hayman mentioned in his letter must have been apparent. The police must have been aware of these matters; we should have been aware of these matters. There is nothing in the letter that tells us something about international terrorism of which we were not aware when the previous legislation was passed. We must have known about those matters then, and we should take that into account as well.
	Although in balancing liberty against public safety I am not prepared without hearing more to concede what the police are asking for, I am certainly not prepared to turn their request down out of hand. I therefore hope that we shall give the matter very serious consideration in Committee and try to do the best that we can to balance public safety against the fundamental civil liberty of not being detained for an unreasonable length of time without charge.
	I am not convinced by the course proposed by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on behalf of the Liberal Democratsthat of charging the person concerned with a lesser charge and then questioning thembecause I fail to see just how many of the rights of the accused person would be preserved. The person would definitely face a lesser charge, and may face a more serious charge later. In the meantime the police could continue to question him. All the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about questioning someone for a long time when they are held in detention not knowing their ultimate fate must apply with as much force to the hon. Gentleman's proposal as they do to the Government's. I recoil from the concept of charging someone with a lesser charge rather than the full charge; they should face the full charge at the earliest possible opportunity. So, there are problems with those provisions.
	Problems also arise from the operation of the Bail Act 1976. When a person is charged, they are brought before a court, as is their right, but from the point of view of bail the court will deal with them with the lesser charge in mind, and the decision on bail may well go in the person's favour when the police are still investigating them for very serious matters. So I do not think that the hon. Member for Winchester has the answer; he needs to do more thinking.
	We all need to approach this issue seriously and to give it very serious consideration. We should not adopt inflexible attitudes at this point. We should be prepared to make concessions on all sides and to strive for a spirit of consensus; to listen carefully to the reasoned arguments on both sides; and to give very serious consideration to our duty both to defend civil liberties and to protect our fellow citizens and ensure public safety.

Shahid Malik: Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was addressed by Madam Deputy Speaker as Shahid Malik. She is in good company, because my mother was watching the BBC Parliament channel last week and saw me referred to as Sadiq Khan. She was not pleased that I had not consulted her on the name change. We are often confused, but I assure the House that we are not twins.
	Most hon. Members will agree that since 7 July few places have been challenged as much as my constituency. I was proud to be elected as Dewsbury's MP, but that pride pales into insignificance compared with the pride I feel at the way in which we have responded, as a united community, against the twin evils of terrorism and extremism. However, I am not naive, and the arrest this weekend in my constituency of a young man whom the tabloids have labelled the fifth suicide bomber underlines the need for constant vigilance.
	The alleged ringleader of the 7 July attacks was Mohammed Siddique Khan, also from Dewsbury. Many hon. Members will have seen his chilling video on al-Jazeera, in which he blamed westerners like me for the attacks. More than 50 innocent people, including six Muslims, were murdered in the attacks, so let us make no mistake that he meant people like me. Let us be clear that the only people responsible for those heinous acts were Siddique Khan and his twisted associates. Nothing in this world could excuse or justify their vile actions.
	I shall touch on the debate about the cause of the suicide bombings. It is true that foreign policy concerns about Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine and Iraq, coupled with deprivation and the negative portrayal of Islam in the media, have caused frustration and anger among British Muslims. I am often angry and frustrated about injustices at home and abroad, but I do not blow myself up and kill innocent fellow citizens in the belief that I will go to heaven. No Muslim I have ever met would suggest that such actions were Islamic. The lethal ingredient that turns legitimate anger and frustration into hatred and terrorism is an utterly grotesque and perverted interpretation of Islam. That is why I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who talked of debate, discourse and democracy as the vehicle for change in this country.
	In my maiden speech, two weeks before 7 July, I said that a modern Britain had no place for extremism of any order, whether it be from Nick Griffin and the BNP or Sheikh Omar Bakri and al-Muhajiroun. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for ensuring that Bakria man who caused more damage to the image of Islam than the BNP ever couldis no longer in Britain. I wish only that we could send Nick Griffin with him.
	I ask hon. Members to heed the point that we must send a clear message from this Chamber that this issue is not about Islam, but about extremism. The Bill is not about targeting Muslims, but about targeting extremism, whatever shape or form it takes. However, I repeat the concerns that I articulated in the Home Affairs Committee that my right hon. Friend needs to strive to strike the balance between civil liberties and security for our citizens. We must be careful not to exclude the very people whose support is crucial in this struggle.

Sadiq Khan: I accept my hon. Friend's point that it is not the intention of the legislation to discriminate against communities. However, the figures on the ethnicity of those people who have been subjected to stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 leave no doubt that the perception in the community that those so treated are of a certain faith and ethnicity is correct.

Shahid Malik: I fully accept that the police and security services need to do much more to give to those communities the confidence that they are not being unfairly targeted. Indeed, as a former commissioner on the Commission for Racial Equality, I have raised that issue on number occasions.
	The Home Secretary recognises more than most that legislation on its own cannot create the kind of society that we want. Our battle must also be one to win the hearts and minds of all decent Britons. That is why I applaud the seven working groups that he has set up to deal with the environment that can fuel extremism and foster terrorism. I also applaud his decision to chair the commission on integration and cohesion, which has the potential to do much good.
	Although it is absolutely right that we focus on young Muslims in our inner cities who feel alienated and isolated and are ripe for exploitation by extremists, it is equally true that young white men in our peripheral estates also feel alienated and isolated, albeit for different reasons, and are similarly ripe for exploitation by far right-wing groups. We ignore their needs at our peril. However, the debate is about legislation, and like many hon. Members I have much sympathy with the Home Secretary's intentions in introducing the Bill.
	To those who would say that introducing these laws is a sign that the terrorists have won, I say that they have the luxury of expressing that view. Our role in the House is to guard against such self-indulgence and to prioritise the protection of our people in the face of a new and lethal threat. Since 7 July, this country has changed. Our world has changed, and I accept that we must respond to the challenges that that change presents. I do not believe that anyone can be happy with the prospect of introducing legislation under such circumstances, but it is essential that we now re-examine the balance between liberty and security and between rights and responsibilities.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which we were able to work together as two of the hon. Members whose constituencies were affected by what happened in the summer, but I want to ask him a direct question. Does he not agree that there is real concern in Muslim communities above all specifically about clause 23 on extending the period of detention to 90 days? Is that not a real problem?

Shahid Malik: I agree that there is such concern not just in Muslim communities but throughout the country.
	I have talked about the balance between liberty and security, and I am very clear about one thing: in the struggle between competing rights, the right to life is paramount. It is our most precious freedom, and it must be defended. Like most hon. Members, I do not take lightly the prospect of enacting legislation that could imprison a person for up to 90 days without charge I am most uncomfortable about thatbut I am aware that, after 7 and 21 July, the police amassed some 38,000 exhibits and 80,000 CCTV videos, which needed to be monitored and examined. Hence, in exceptional cases, there is plainly an argument for increasing the current 14-day maximum pre-charge detention. On that point, I disagree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
	The question for the House is not whether an increase is needed, but whether 90 days is justifiable. I am not 100 per cent. convinced, but there is some reassurance in the fact that Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, is a strong supporter of the Bill, and that extending the pre-charge period will require judicial review every seven days. I also draw comfort from the fact that, over the past two years under the current laws, only 11 people have been held for the full allowable period and all 11 were charged. That suggests that the new legislation will be used sparingly and only where the likelihood of charges being brought is high.
	I welcome the amending of the draft legislation and the incorporation of the element of intent into the offence of glorification. That is most helpful. On a connected note, during the election in Dewsbury, I was plagued by both the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. I should love to ban them both, but while they refrain from overtly promoting violence, our battle with them must be one of ideas.
	I urge everyone in our communities to support the police and the security services in their fight against the evil of terrorism. They cannot win that battle alone. We all have a responsibility as communities and individuals, which is why I am happy to say that over the past few weeks I have passed on information to the authorities about possible terrorist activity. I shall continue to do so. A handful of people in the Muslim community may say that that represents a betrayal of Islam, but I regard it as a fundamental act of Islam.

Greg Mulholland: Everyone in the House will remember 7 July for a long time, but I will never forget 12 July for as long as I live. At about 11.30 on that Tuesday morning, I received a text message from a council colleague in Leeds. He told me that helicopters were hovering over a property in the Hyde Park area of my constituency, police were carrying out an armed raid and that I should return as quickly as I could. I was at the police cordon by 4 pm that day, in a community with a deep sense of shock. I am delighted to say, however, that the community's response was magnificent, as I am sure it was in Dewsbury. We must emphasise that point. The communities of Hyde Park, Beeston and Dewsbury have been united in both their condemnation of the appalling events of 7 July and their real resolve to move forward as united, diverse, multicultural communities.
	We have to accept that the Bill is before the House largely as a result of the appalling reality that four young men from west Yorkshire decided to go to their capital city and blow themselves up. A week after 12 July I visited all the homes where families had been evacuated due to the bomb factory in my constituency. I spoke to constituents who had been affected to reassure them and to get a sense of how they were feeling.
	I had a conversation with a Muslim mother who told me, We are scared. I replied that I could understand that but she said, No, you don't understand. She told me that they were scared not only about a backlash and reprisals from far-right groups such as the BNP, but also because they thought that the Government would brand them all as terrorists.
	I am glad to say that the Hyde Park community and my party are united about the parts of the Bill that we genuinely feel will go a long way towards helping to prevent repetitions of 7 July, but some things are causing real concern. People feel that clause 1 will prevent debate about things such as the occupation of Iraq by British and American troops, and about Palestine and Chechnya. They are also deeply concerned about deportations to countries that practise torture, whatever bits of paper people may be given. Most of all, they are concerned about the provisionsto which we objectto detain people without trial for 90 days. From my experience of the community perspective, I can tell the House that those provisions are seen as draconian, dangerous and deeply divisive. They are divisive because, as was said earlier, we all know who will be detained for 90 days without trial. They will be members of communities such as ours who are Asian or Arabic-looking.
	The whole investigation into the property in Alexandra grove, which briefly became one of the most notorious addresses in the world, showed the real dangers that exist. Within days of the discovery, three different suspects had been tried and found guilty by the media. The Egyptian, Dr. el-Nashar, was unable to return to his home and job at Leeds university because as far as everyone was concerned, he was guilty. I pay tribute to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) in which he pointed out the real dangers of confusion and the fact that people will live in fear of being detained, although they are entirely innocent.

Lynne Featherstone: Does my hon. Friend also agree that while the power is disproportionate, it could also be used in error? The authorities always say that they know when someone is guilty, but if they are to hold people for 90 days, what would they say to the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and Judith Ward, all of whom were accused of being terrorists, but were innocent?

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am pleased to be participating in a debate of such quality.
	There was a failure of intelligence on 7 July and all the legislation in the world would not have prevented what happened. I am sure that all those who represent communities that were directly affected by the events in the summer and the revelations of their links with west Yorkshire would agreeI hope that we would all reach this conclusionthat the solutions to address what happened on 7 July must come from those communities.
	The message is simple and clear. I cannot understand the strange conclusion that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) reached, but I agree with and welcome the conclusion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). Yes, there are aspects of the Bill with which I and the community that I represent agree. However, other measures in the Bill, most notably clause 23, which will allow the detention of people for up 90 daysor three months, which, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) pointed out, is the equivalent of a six-month prison sentenceare creating fear in my community. The provision is already causing division, mistrust and fear. The clause is too serious to allow me to vote in favour of the Bill, so I am pleased to say that I shall not do so, and nor will my party and many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Richard Burden: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, Opposition Members in complimenting the Home Secretary for the way in which he has gone about the debate and the spirited dialogue that he has undertaken. That said, there is something a little circular about some of the arguments that have been put forward in support of several of the more contentious aspects of the Bill. They almost seem to suggest that because we are dealing with a new kind of terrorist threat, the more uncompromising the apparent response, the more effective that response will be. I do not necessarily agree that that is the case.
	We must try to work out what we can do to minimise the chance of actions such as those in July from happening again. Part of that will involve determining the most effective methods of investigation and the most effective ways in which we can bring to justice those who commit, or are preparing to commit, such offences, but we must also ensure that we win over peoplethey are often young peoplewho have a sense of grievance so that they do not adopt such actions and violence as a means of protest, or because they feel that that is a way of achieving change.
	Part 1 of the Bill and other relevant provisions are profoundly deficient and may well achieve precisely the opposite of what Home Secretary wants them to achieve. It is already illegal to incite others to commit terrorist acts. Now, however, the Government are asking us to approve legislation that will lock people up for seven years if they say something that glorifies terrorism and can be held indirectly to encourage it. Those are sweeping powers. They are directed not at what people do but at what they say, so we would expect to have to be careful about the way in which we define glorification and terrorism.
	Many hon. Members have talked about the deficiencies in the catch-all definition of terrorism with which we are working. The example of the African National Congress in South Africa is a good one. Equally, however, if someone incited or encouraged a Government to launch a military attack on another country to achieve a political objective such as the removal of a tyrannical regime, that would be considered terrorism under the definitions in the Bill and in the Terrorism Act 2000. Presumably politicians who encouraged a Government to take military action against a tyrannical regime would be guilty of terrorism. If that is the case, a number of hon. Membersnot me, I should addwould be caught by the provision.
	Ministers are asking us not to worry our heads about these things, as the new law will not be applied indiscriminately. They say that the Director of Public Prosecutions will look at the context of each case and the public interest. That is not very reassuring. It sounds as if we may try to prosecute individuals who glorify politically motivated violence by people of whom we do not approve but that we may turn a blind eye to statements in support of political violence committed by our friends. It is precisely the perception of such double standards that has contributed to the scepticism with which many people, particularly in our Muslim community, view the much-vaunted war on terror. One does not have to be a supporter of Hamas or even a sympathiser to worry that someone could be locked up in this country for suggesting that Palestinians might be justified in using some form of political violence to resist the occupation of the west bank.

Louise Ellman: rose

Mike Gapes: rose

Richard Burden: Because of time constraints, I will give way only once, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes).

Mike Gapes: I would be grateful for clarification. Is my hon. Friend saying that people who advocate the blowing-up of buses, bars and schools are not inciting or glorifying terrorism? Is that acceptable?

Richard Burden: No. I said exactly what I meant. I condemn anyone who advocates the blowing-up of buses or any attack on civilians. The Bill, however, does not just include such acts but any act of political violence. As I said, I am worried that someone could be locked up for suggesting that Palestinian political violence is justified. We should debate that, as only a few weeks ago an Israeli general accused of war crimeswhether justifiably or not, I do not knowwas discreetly spirited out of the UK to avoid an arrest warrant. There have even been rumours of unofficial diplomatic apologies to Israel for any embarrassment that may have been caused.
	I am not condoning in any way the use of terrorist violence in the west bank or Gaza. Indeed, I spend a great deal of time arguing with people who do so because I think that such arguments are a worthwhile exercise. I am told that conversations that others and I have had may have played a part, albeit a small one, in helping to achieve certain ceasefires. But what the Bill tells me is that there is no place for that kind of dialogue. It asks me as a legislator to criminalise someone not for committing the act of violence, but for offering an opinion that may seek to justify it. By banning things or outlawing them, one will not necessarily stop them.
	If one talks to people who know about the dynamics of different forms of political Islam, they will say, and have said in meetings in this place, that the danger of clause 1 and related clausesmy right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) put it very wellis that they will end up grouping together those who support the use of violence to achieve limited political aims, even if I do not agree with those political aims, because they believe, perhaps wrongly, that there is no alternative, with those whose perverted and apocalyptic view of the world sees some kind of Zionist-crusader conspiracy as the root of all evil, and who say that any kind of slaughter anywhere in the world is justified to confront that supposed conspiracy.
	Are we more likely to save one more innocent life by lumping those two political outlooks together, or are we more likely to save lives if we are prepared to distinguish between thembetween those whom we might just stand a chance of diverting from the path of violence, and those whom we simply have to fight? Those who incite, organise or commit the kind of atrocities that London experienced in July should be held to account for those crimes, but we also have a responsibility to try to help prevent similar atrocities from taking place in other countries.
	I realise that the argument that I am advancing may be unfashionable in some quarters. I am sure it would be unfashionable in the neo con world of US Patriot Acts or the easy division of the world into goodies and baddies, usually defined as goodies being us, and baddies being them. However, we also need to tackle the complex web of causes of grievances that end up leadingyeseven to the slaughter of civilians, whether by Governments, which I would condemn, or by terrorist groups, which I would equally condemn.
	We are in danger of making matters worse if we introduce laws that are so open-ended that they outlaw debate, even an uncomfortable debate, or are applied so selectively that they seem to be targeted on only one section of our community. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South should realise that under the definitions in the Bill, if I, or anybody else, sought to justify Palestinian political violence, I would be caught by the Bill. If somebody stood up in the House and sought to justify the bulldozing of a Palestinian home suspected of harbouring terrorists by the Israeli army, they would be also be committing an offence under the Bill.
	In dealing with the problems in the middle east and working out how we can most effectively contribute to a just peace there, we can do rather better than trying to lock each other up because we happen to hold one view or another view. That is why I am profoundly worried about the first part of the Bill and related clauses. The Government will not get my support tonight. I may not vote against the Bill, but they will not get my support. I hope they will listen to the arguments and rethink the clause before Committee and Report, because it will do nothing to defeat the causes of terrorism, which is what we should aim to do.

Tobias Ellwood: I was looking forward to hearing the Government's plans for dealing with international terrorism. I take a personal interest in the subject, having lost my brother in the Bali bombing, as the House may be aware. I am concerned, however, about what is in the Bill, what is not in the Bill, and what is part of an entire strategy that the Government should be putting together to deal with an international issue, not a local issue.
	The Bill is supposed to be the cornerstone of how we deal with international terrorism. How would it or could it have prevented the bomb that went off on 7 July?
	I do not understand why we are not addressing the fundamental issue of why British citizens decide to kill other British citizens. The Bill does not address that and I should like the Minister to comment on that.
	Time is limited and others wish to speak, but I want to focus on two issues that concern the international scene. We understand that no matter how much legislation we create in this House or anywhere else, it is virtually impossible to stop an attack taking place. However, I have spoken to the survivors and the families of the victims of the Bali, Turkey and Sharm el-Sheikh disasters, and there is a frustration that the energy and determination that has been expended to fight terrorism here in the UK is not matched by other countries around the world. That is reflected in the fact that a second bomb has gone off in Bali. Bali itself, or Indonesia, has yet to condemnto outlawJemaah Islamiah, the terrorist group responsible for the first and second bombings. Those countries need our help and support, and if we are to have a strategy to deal with international terrorism, we should be at the forefront of helping such countries, whether they be in the middle east, Indonesia, Afghanistan or Pakistan.
	The other concern that has been expressed is that the energy and determination to prevent a bomb from going off in the first place is not matched by the commitment and support to the victims. With regard to compensation, will the Minister update us on the position regarding those affected by 7 July? There is also a recognition that terrorism knows no borders, and neither should our support for British citizens, no matter where the bombs take place. Yet, because the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refuses to acknowledge any events that take place abroad, although people in Bali, Turkey and elsewhere have been killed by the same terrorist organisations, they do not get a penny in compensation from the Government.
	Terrorism is unlikely to disappear. In fact, it is likely to get worse with the use of nuclear, possibly biological and perhaps chemical weapons as well. If the Bill is supposed to be the platform to contain, stop and eradicate terrorism, I find it wanting. We need to give more help to those people where the blanket of security that we are trying to create is failing. We face the challenge of breaking down the religious divide that these terrorists are trying to widen not only here in the UK but in other parts of the world.
	There is little in the Bill to prevent the conveyor belt of the disillusioned from being recruited by the terrorist. We could be doing much more not only in the House but as a nation and on the international scene to improve our prospects in fighting the battle against terrorism.

Mark Hendrick: The 20th century was a century in which this country had to deal with the challenges faced by the isms of communism and fascism. The people of this country were threatened by evil ideologies from abroad that were totalitarian in nature and that threatened the country with the conventional military might of armies, air forces and navies.
	In the 2lst century, we must deal with the challenges of globalisation and terrorism. Some months ago, I might have said international and global terrorism, but since 7 July, the fact that we witnessed here in London terrorist acts perpetrated by British citizens has moved the goalposts, and as the Prime Minister put it, the rules must change. The threat that we face is totalitarian in nature, but guerrilla-like in its methods.
	Again we face an evil ideology from abroad, a perverse extremist form of Islam. It is as extreme and perverse as some of the right-wing white supremacist sects in the United States, but it is one that has now chosen to wage war with any religious or racial group that does not follow its teachings.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), with whose views I often disagree, particularly on Europe, was the first hon. Member, despite the hours of debate, to describe this as a war. Al-Qaeda is waging a war on secularism, tolerance, and racial and religious harmony. It is waging a war on Muslims in Iraq as well as on the people of all faiths and races from places as far apart as New York and Bali and as near as Madrid and London.
	The world in which we live is changing by the day. Affordable international air travel, the internet and even digital mobile phone technology have become the means of delivery of the poison of these people's ideology or the power of their explosives. The threat had to be faced and I believe that the Bill is part of the developing armoury of legislation that must be deployed to counter the threat and provide for a more secure Britain.
	Today's British society recognises the need for this legislation. Some civil liberties groups, Opposition Members and colleagues have genuine reservations about parts of the Bill, but I have none. Since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, we have had the benign 1990s. Britain, and Europe in general, with the exception of the Balkans, have enjoyed relative peace and stability. Until 11 September 2001, we had come to expect economic growth, high employment, low interest rates and modern creature comforts as things that we all deserved, and the vast majority of people had hopes, expectations and a general feeling of security.
	Today, however, people have fears as well as aspirations because of the nature of the threat that we face. The Bill deals with those threats in a balanced and reasonable way that is a large step in the right direction. In order to stop the spread of this poisonous ideology, the glorification of terrorism is to be outlawed, as is praising or celebrating terrorist acts: good, I say.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend and I share a common view about the dangers that we face, but did I hear him correctly? Does not he have a single reservation about the Bill?

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend did hear me correctly, and if he will allow me to continue he will find out why.
	Some Members have said, What about praising the ANC or movements in Palestine, Burma or elsewhere in the world? It is clearly justifiable to support, praise and celebrate the aims and objectives of many such movements, particularly when they are oppressed by regimes that deny them their land, liberty and freedom of speech, without necessarily supporting all their methods in trying to achieve those aims and objectives. I want a stable and secure Palestine based on the 1967 boundaries, but I would never praise or celebrate the terrorist methods of Hamas or the former atrocities of the PLO. If oppressed opposition groups in countries around the world who have just cause choose to resort to terrorist methods because they have lost their land, liberty and freedom and have no vote, I would not celebrate, support or try to justify those terrorist actions.
	That is not to say that if change occurs in a country as a result of the use of terrorist methods, I would not accept that the new regime mayor in some cases may notbe better than the old one. I would not seek to justify the means by which it had gained power, but be content with the outcome. I have never believed that the ends justify the means. In a situation where a regime is persecuting people, self-defence is legitimate. Wars or UN resolutions-based actions against regimes are legitimate. As for what remains on the consciences of people in other countries in determining how they attain their freedom, I, and for that matter many Governments, have little power over that. However, where there are interventions and military actions such as in Afghanistan and Iraqconflicts where genocide has been avertedand conflicts that involve the UN, we can hold a view that celebrates and justifies armed struggle against the oppressors, and would justifiably not describe actions against the regime in question as terrorism.
	Let us say that the tube train that exploded in an underground tunnel on 7 July was activated by a timing device left by someone who had left the train instead of a suicide bomber, and that the suspected bomber had later been apprehended by the police. It could take months to acquire the forensic evidence to convict the suspect, as the tunnel could have completely collapsed, with a risk to rescue workers similar to that which we saw on 7 July. Finding a fingerprint on something left by the bomber would be like finding a needle in a haystack and would take longer than two weeks.
	The stakes are now so high that half measures will not do. The nation looks to us to safeguard its security. If the Bill is not passed in something that relates to its current form andGod forbidanother atrocity on the scale of 7 July occurs because a detained suspect is released after a few weeks, despite the fact that he remains under suspicion on good intelligence grounds, we would have to live with that knowledge for the rest of our lives.

Dominic Grieve: The debate has been fascinating, especially because of the range of views that have been expressed and the lack of certainty about the direction from which a different view would be voiced. It must be apparent to the Government that they face a major challenge over the Bill. The tenor of the contributions shows that many hon. Members feel the most serious disquiet about the impact of the proposed legislation on civil liberties in this country.

Anne Main: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend echoing the fact that many of us do not support the Government. I am sure that he will assure me that we lend support for the Government's returning with a much better Bill. We cannot and will not support loss of civil liberties and of freedom of speech.

Dominic Grieve: I assure my hon. Friend that that is our intention. I shall revert to that shortly.
	Powerful contributions have been made. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who said that he was unable to support the Bill, voiced serious doubts about its operation and highlighted the fact that the provisions are so widely drawn that they would cover expressions of opinion. Most people would regard it as improper to criminalise those.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in another powerful speech, clearly expressed his anxiety that a wide range of legislation, which the Government could use, already exists to cover incitement. He thereby cast doubt on the necessity for clause 1. Those doubts were echoed by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who made a powerful speech about his anxiety that, far from improving community relations in this country, the Bill would undermine them.

John Bercow: As one who did not make a powerful speech, or, indeed, have the opportunity to make a speech at all, I stress that many colleagues are simply not prepared to support the Bill at this stage because it contains too broad a range of powers, which are too vaguely defined and threaten too much damage in return for too little benefit. It is quite simple.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes up for the lack of opportunity to make a speech with a characteristically powerful intervention. I do not disagree with the anxieties that he expresses, although I shall try shortly to explain why I personally feel comfortable in supporting the Government on Second Reading.
	Hon. Members who, broadly speaking, believe that the Bill is worthy of support and that there is good in it, made some important contributions. I was especially struck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) who provided a reasoned analysis and powerful arguments for why he believed that the period of detention would have to be extended from 14 days. He was joined by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who always approaches our deliberations from a different angle. Nevertheless, we have to consider it.
	The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) had a great deal to say about community relations. That must be a starting point. There is no point in the House legislating ad nauseam to create new structures to try to stop terrorists, because we know very wellI am sure that the Home Secretary will be the first to acknowledge thisthat the way to stop terrorism in the long term involves two things. The first is adequate security. The second is pinching terrorism out at its source by making it completely unacceptable in any section of our community. Those must be our two aims, but I have to say to the Home Secretary that the Bill does not address either of them, because it looks specifically at the legislative functions by which a greater penal policy can be directed towards the issue.

Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Muslim community is united against terrorism, but expressing great unhappiness about the Bill? Its members have followed the Bill with considerable attention and believe that it is targeted at them. Given the concern in the community, is not the fact that the Bill contains a provision for 90 days' detention without trial unlikely to create the kind of community co-operation that will help us to fight terrorism?

Dominic Grieve: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. What worries me particularly is that the 90-day period appears to have been plucked out of the air with very little justification. During the passage of the Bill, the Government are going to have to engage in a proper dialogue with Members of the House to explain why 90 days is an appropriate period, as opposed to 16 or 28 days, six months, or anything else.
	The Conservatives do not wish to get involved in a Dutch auction with the Government. Our question is: why should there be an extension from 14 days, which already represents a considerable extension of the existing practices? Are there any alternatives that might make it unnecessary to extend the period at all? We shall listen to the Home Secretary and other Ministers to establish whether they can come up with any coherent arguments as to why the period needs to be extended. However, any extension of the period beyond 14 days will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) rightly said earlier, have the capacity to create martyrs. There would be nothing worse for community relations than individuals being released from custody without charge after six weeks of detention. I cannot think of a better recruiting sergeant for terrorism or disaffection.
	The problems faced by the Government start with the definition of terrorism. I accept that we adopted a definition in the 2000 Act that may have been appropriateI emphasise the word mayin the context of domestic terrorism in the United Kingdom. However, one of the effects of the Bill will be to extend it to a worldwide definition. I hope that the Home Secretary will have taken on board from today's debate the fact that the definition is now completely unacceptable, unless we are saying that violence for political ends can never be justified in any circumstances. If that is the case, I have to say to the Home Secretary that I am not quite sure what we are doing in Iraq. We must face the fact that we have long accepted that there may be occasions on which such justification exists.

Alan Simpson: The hon. Gentleman will recall the debate in the House two weeks ago about the extension of the list of proscribed organisations. Included on that list was the Islamic Jihad Union in Uzbekistan. Many Members raised concerns about the inclusion of that organisation and, a matter of days later, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan wrote in The Guardian that there was no basis for substantiating the allegations that had been made about it, that they had come from the Uzbek Government and that we had no embedded intelligence sources of our own in the region. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the provisions relating to encouragement in the Bill would place hon. Members in an invidious position, in that, if we sought to defend an organisation that had been improperly proscribed as a terrorist organisation, we would be committing a terrorist offence under the encouragement provisions?

Dominic Grieve: As drafted, the clause presents precisely those difficulties. While I have some sympathy with the Government in trying to consider the issue of terrorism generally, the fact is that the definition provided is hopeless to meet the problems for which we must legislate. Furthermore, as has been highlighted, clause 1, in relation to incitement, provides for an offence that can be committed negligently, not an offence of specific intent. Therefore, when those two factors are taken together, a very large number of people in this country are likely to be criminalised for their comments.
	Let me make one thing clear to the Government: the suggestion that it does not matter that the legislation is woolly, because either the DPP or the Attorney-General will act as a long stop to prevent something wrong from happening, is just not acceptable. The task of this House is to pass legislation that is intellectually coherent and intelligible, not to give a blank cheque to the Government, which they can exercise through the Law Officers or anyone else at their whim.
	We do not think that the offence of glorification should be in the Bill at all. I know that it was even worse in the first draft of the Bill, and I am grateful that the Home Secretary seems to have persuaded the Prime Minister to give way on the matter. One is left with the impression, however, that it has been left in the Bill specifically to save the Prime Minister's face. That is not acceptable either. Either glorification amounts to incitement of its own, or it does not amount to incitement at all. If it does not amount to incitement at all, there is no reason why it should be separately identified within the legislation. The sooner that we have an assurance from the Government that it will be removed, the better progress we will make during the passage of the Bill.
	The second issue that has greatly exercised the House is that of the 90-day detention period. As I said a moment ago, there are ways in which we believe that the issue can be considered afresh. There are a number of possibilities. We certainly need much better scrutiny, as was suggested by Lord Carlile. The decisions should be taken by a senior circuit judge and not by a district judge, to which we shall return in Committee. There should be a review mechanism and an appeal process to the High Court, and I am dubious that seven-day periods are acceptable, because the judge should decide the period before a return, and the only basis for any continuing detention would have to be persuading the judge that there is a reason, in the next three, four or 72 hours, that that detention will yield benefit.
	It is also astonishing that one of the provisions under the detention clause is that detention can take place in order to facilitate continuing questioning and nothing else. One moment's thought must make the Government realise that that is an unacceptable premise. In fact, any confession that is obtained will probably be thrown out by the court. The atmosphere of oppression that will be conveyedthat somebody can be detained specifically for the purpose of questioning and interrogation on its ownis one that is readily curable.
	Although I have no difficulty in agreeing with large parts of the Bill, much of it is very sloppily drafted. In relation to the dissemination of terrorist literature and publications, are we seriously saying that the offence will be so widely drafted that a university lecturer handing out copies of an al-Qaeda manifesto to his students would be caught by the operation of the Act? The Home Secretary shakes his head, but as drafted, that is precisely what the legislation does.
	There is much to criticise, but there is a kernel in the Bill that seeks to improve anti-terrorist powers. We accept that, which is why, in principle, we are prepared to support the Government. We are also mindful that the Government have provided a proper opportunity for the House to consider the legislation, in Committee of the whole House, a proper Report stage thereafter, and most importantly of all, a Third Reading that will be more than a 45-minute rubber stamp.
	For those reasons, let me, first, thank the Home Secretary and, secondly, say that we intend to engage in a constructive dialogue. However, I also ask the Home Secretary not to end this process by saying that amendments will be tabled in another place. Either the Bill is in an acceptable condition by the time of Third Reading or it will not have our support, andaccording to my impressionwill not have the support of many Members in all parts of the House.
	The challenge is with the Government. We intend to work co-operatively with the Home Secretary, but I must tell him that there is a great mountain to be climbed before the Bill is in an acceptable condition.

Hazel Blears: We have engaged in a good and serious debate, and we have heard a range of different views expressed from all parts of the House. The issues that we have discussed are not appropriate ground for political point-scoring, and we have not heard any today. I hope that the debates in Committee and on Report will feature the same constructive tone.
	We are all struggling to reconcile the issues of security and liberty. How, in our free democracy, do we protect our citizens from harm while at the same time protecting the fundamental values that are so precious to every Member of Parliament? How, in particular, do we protect our freedom to speak, and to debate serious ideas on which we have deeply opposing views, while maintaining a sense of respect and upholding the right of decent people to go about their business in peace and safety?
	I ask Members to remember what happened on 7 July. More than 50 innocent people were murdered by terrorists who did not care how many innocent people they killed. More than 700 people were injured, many of them seriously, and their whole lives will be affected. I say that not in order to make my arguments easier to present, but because it is always in my mind as we struggle to get the balance right.
	We are not talking about a theoretical situation. This is not an academic debate. The threat is real. We have been attacked, and we must now find the best way in which to protect the people of this country, while upholding and strengthening our values.

Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before 7 July the worst mass-murder terrorist attack on civilians was the Birmingham pub bombing? Immediate anti-terror legislation followed, and then the wrong people were arrested, although they were given a full jury trial. There is no doubt that in my city, the alienation of the Irish community that resulted from all that created a breeding ground for sympathy for terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend believe that we are remembering the lessons of those events?

Hazel Blears: I absolutely believe that we have learnt the lessons. Of course we must have safeguards in our legislation, but we must also have legislation that gives us the necessary powers to disrupt terrorism, to prosecute more terrorists, and to bring terrorists to justice within a proper legal system and according to the rule of law.
	The Bill contains much that is good, but inevitably today's debate has focused on the clause 1 offence of encouragement to commit terrorism and the extension of the maximum period of detention in clause 23. I emphasise maximum period of detention. I shall respond to as many points as possible, but I shall not be able to deal with all of them. We shall have a good opportunity to debate them in Committee.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that we should scrutinise the Bill and that there should be challenges, scepticism and questioning. That is what the House is good at, and I think that we will end up with legislation that is practical and effective. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)I pay tribute to his extensive experience in Northern Irelandsaid that the events of 7 July were unprecedented in our country. Like many other Members, he recognises that the terrorist threat that we face now is significantly different from the Irish threat in many ways. I agreed with his sensible and practical observations.
	I was grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for his acknowledgment of the way in which we have approached the issue. We are trying to secure consensus. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman and his party are to vote against Second Reading, because I genuinely do not believe that that is the right approach. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about clause 1 and the extension of the period of detention, he can debate those matters in Committee. The Bill contains a range of measures that will protect the people of this country.
	The hon. Member for Winchester said that in his view, there are alternatives to the 90-day limit that will work. We will explore them in Committee, but I point out to him now that the idea of charging suspects with a lesser offence has some serious faults. First, it is dishonest. Charging somebody with a minor offence simply as a ruse to keep them in custody is not the right thing to do. Secondly, it might not work. In order to get the evidence for the lesser offence, it might be necessary to decrypt a computer, which would take longer than the period in question in any event. Such an approach could also be inefficient and divert police resources towards dealing with minor offences, when they should be concentrating on the major offences in question. Indeed, such an approach could prove dangerous. Someone could be let out on bail because they were charged with a lesser offence, and then commit further offences. However, we will explore all those issues in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised issues relating to the offence of glorifying and encouraging of terrorism. I point out to all Members that if we seek to make a distinction between good terrorism and bad terrorism, we will get into very dangerous territory. Terrorism is wrong. We should not encourage people to kill, murder and maim others, even in the interest of political change. That will prove a really important dividing line as we continue our discussions.

John Bercow: The argument is not about the distinction between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist; it is about whether there is a distinctionas many of us believe there isbetween a terrorist and a freedom fighter, and if so, what that distinction is. Does the Minister not acknowledge the difference?

Hazel Blears: What we have is a definition of terrorism, and if somebody is guilty of terrorism, they are guilty of terrorism. The path on which the hon. Gentleman is embarking in seeking that dividing line will lead him into significant and considerable difficulties; but we shall see.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) also dealt with the offence of encouraging terrorism, and he said that such an offence could amount simply to somebody being offended by something that was said. This offence is not about offending somebody. It has to be likely that those hearing the statement in question will be encouraged to emulate terrorist acts; that is a world away from having a debate and simply saying something that somebody does not agree with.

Louise Ellman: Does the Minister agree that the carnage that happened in London is part of a global activity, and does she agree that inciting and glorifying the murder of civilians in Iraq or in Israel is incompatible with claiming to be against the committing of the very same acts in this country?

Hazel Blears: Yes, and my hon. Friend puts the point extremely well. This Bill is about saying that terrorism, wherever it occurs, is wrong. People should not murder, maim and kill others in any context.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made the absolutely valid point that legislation alone will not resolve the problems that we face. It is about winning hearts and minds, good policing, effective community relationships and better intelligence. But I say to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that we need to think very carefully about this issue. If we are to limit terrorist offences simply to civilians, will that suggest that it is legitimate to attack police officers and innocent members of the armed forces? That is a very difficult distinction to make, but we will explore it in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr.   Shepherd) made his usual passionate speech on this issue; he will doubtless participate in our subsequent debate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have allowed the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to intervene. He spoke in favour of the Bill, and I was grateful for his emphasis on ensuring that our measures are proportionate to the threat that we face.
	I was disappointed by the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)he is not in his place, but he apologised to me in advance for his absencemade about the police. He said that if they could use a longer detention period, they might sit on the records for 30 or 40 days. If he had personal knowledge of the work that the police have done since 7 Julyof the effort that they have put into the investigations, and the thousands of hours of CCTV footage that they have examinedhe would realise that they are not likely to sit on documents for that long without taking action. Of course they are keen to minimise the detention period.
	I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the Bill's provisions. He has some concerns, and I am sure that we will debate them in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made extremely good speeches. I am particularly grateful for the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury in supporting his local community and for the stand that he has taken on these issues, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
	I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for the measures in the Bill and I look forward to debating it further with him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who is now Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has looked at these issues in great detail and I welcome what he said about the Bill representing a proportionate response in human rights terms. I greatly welcome his support.
	The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) made a telling contribution about his shock at the events of 7 July. I have been out on many visits to the Muslim community across the country, including Leeds, and I found some excellent work going on to bring people together to face the threat.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) about the importance of keeping engaged with young people. Together with the Muslim community, there are now seven groups working with women and young people to tackle extremism, and seeking to secure the support of imams and mosques. I have to say that the young people have probably formed the most exciting working group so far, which has come out with some excellent suggestions about road shows and how they can work to tackle extremism. I am delighted about that.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr.   Ellwood) rightly raised international issues. I can tell him that our international strategy is acknowledged as one of the best, and we intend to continue to support other countries in fighting terrorism.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) set out, in an excellent speech, how the world is changing and how the terrorists threaten everything that we believe in. I welcome his support for the Bill.
	The Bill addresses difficult issues that represent some of the most important ones facing our country. I entirely acknowledge that legislation alone will not be enough to protect our people, but it is vital that we have sufficient powers to intervene early to disrupt terrorism and to prosecute terrorists and bring them to justice. That is what the Bill is all about. It is about ensuring that we have on our statute book the legislation necessary to meet the ever-changing and ever-evolving threat of international terrorism that we face.
	We are desperately trying to strike the right balance. We must have a society in which we respect the rule of law. There will always be tension between our rights as individuals and the rights of the community. I was in the Library quite late last night, after a lengthy debate on another Bill, and I thought about how people have dealt with those tensions over the years. Those tensionsover securing the balance between security and liberty are nothing new. It was John Stuart Mill who, more than 100 years ago, effectively summed up that tension and the balance that we are trying to strike today, when he said:
	All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people.
	That is the balance that must be struck: in exercising our freedoms, it is sometimes necessary to restrain other people's freedoms. Tonight, we are focused on getting the right balance. I look forward with great anticipationand, dare I say, pleasureto the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, during which we can further explore some of the complex and challenging issues.
	I am absolutely convinced that, on the Labour Benches, we want legislation that is practical, workable, effective and will protect the people of this country from the undoubted terrorist threat that we face. I think that the first responsibility of any Government is to protect their citizens while, at the same time, safeguarding the fundamental freedoms that make our democracy one under which people want to live and bring up their families. I am determined that that is what we will do. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 472, Noes 94.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

TERRORISM BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism Bill:
	Committal
	1.   The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee
	2.   (1)   Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
	(2)   Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day   
			 Clauses 1 to 4 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. 
			 Clauses 23 and 24 The moment of interruption on the first day or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Clause 23, whichever is the later 
			 Second day   
			 Clauses 21 and 22, Clauses 5 to 20, Schedule 1, Clauses 25 to 27, Schedule 2, Clauses 28 to 36, Schedule 3, Clauses 37 and 38, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill The moment of interruption on the second day. 
		
	
	(3)   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	3.   Any proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
	5.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of other proceedings
	6.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. [Mr. Cawsey.]
	The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 245.

Question accordingly agreed to.

TERRORISM BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terrorism Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	Council Tax

Mark Lancaster: It is my privilege to present the petition of Captain Burnett and other constituents from North East-Milton Keynes. The residents of North-East Milton Keynes are understandably incensed at the exponential increase in council tax over recent years, which has taken no cognisance of their ability to pay.
	To lie upon the Table.

Christopher Chope: I am delighted to present a petition supported by thousands of my constituents, which was organised by Mr. Bustard of West Parley. It condemns the use of council tax as a stealth-wealth tax by this Government.
	The petition
	Declares that the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay; further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographical or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Daniel Rogerson: I, too, wish to present a petition on council tax with signatures collected across North Cornwall:
	The Petition of the Isitfair Council Tax protest campaign
	Declares that the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay: further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Tim Loughton: Coincidentally, I wish to present a remarkably similar petition on council tax on behalf of 156 constituents in Worthing and the surrounding area. They declare:
	The Petition of the Isitfair Council Tax protest campaign
	Declares that the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay: further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise the Hansard report of an exchange yesterday between the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. At column 184, the right hon. Lady told the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who had asked about looked-after children, that
	all schools will have to look at those children first.[Official Report, 25 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 184.]
	Hansard then reported Interruption, to which the right hon. Lady replied, Yes. In fact, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who is in the Chamber tonight, asked whether that would be a statutory requirement. He said, Statutory?
	That is significant, because earlier today the Leader of the House, standing in for the Prime Minister, told the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) that
	the school adjudicator is charged with ensuring that admissions policies are in line with the code. That will continue to be the position under the proposals announced yesterday.
	Under the code, however, schools are required to have regard to the statutory code of practice on admissions. I wish to put on the record the fact that in reply to the word Statutory? the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said, Yes. Today, however, the Leader of the House said something entirely different.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has managed to put on record his point about a possible discrepancy, which can now be pursued in other ways with which he is familiar.

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Cawsey.]

Gavin Strang: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the urgent need for international action to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
	Back in 1963, US President John F. Kennedy stated that he saw the possibility of 15, 20 or 25 nations having nuclear weapons in the 1970s. Quite a few present Members of the House will not be old enough to remember John Kennedy, but I am, and I remember the widespread appreciation at that time of the importance of preventing more and more states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Clearly, the more states that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used. It was in that climate that the non-proliferation treaty was conceived, negotiated and agreeda time when there was a very real prospect of a rapid escalation in the number of states with nuclear weapons.
	The nuclear non-proliferation treatythe NPTcame into force in 1970. At that time the only countries with nuclear weapons were the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom. Since then, India and Pakistan have acquired and tested nuclear weapons, Israel is believed to have a nuclear weapons capability, and North Korea has stated that it has manufactured nuclear weapons. Every new state with nuclear weapons is a blow to international security, but without the NPT the world would have become a much more dangerous place much sooner.
	The Government rightly describe the NPT as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime. The NPT is built on three central pillarsfirst, preventing proliferation, by stopping new states acquiring nuclear weapons and stopping states that already have nuclear weapons acquiring more; secondly, obliging existing nuclear weapons states to disarm; and, thirdly, enabling nuclear technology to be used peacefully. The treaty is essentially a deal between those countries with nuclear weapons and those without. The non-nuclear states pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons, in return for which they get peaceful uses of nuclear energy, plus the promise of disarmament from the nuclear weapons states.
	Nuclear technology and international politics do not stand still, so it is vital that the global regime for non-proliferation and disarmament can evolve and strengthen, in order to be fit for purpose. The NPT is therefore subject to a review conference every five years. There was such a conference in May this year, and one would have thought that if ever it was crucial that progress be made, it was at that 2005 review conference. After all, much had happened in the preceding five years.
	For the first time a state, North Korea, had announced that it was withdrawing from the treaty. Two states, Libya and North Korea, had announced that they had been working on their own secret nuclear weapons programmes, and North Korea then claimed that it had manufactured nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency had found undeclared uranium-enrichment activity in Iran, and the A.Q. Khan trafficking network had been exposed.
	In the meantime, non-nuclear weapons states were frustrated at the slow progress on disarmament , and the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 had thrown into alarmingly sharp relief the prospect of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. Despite those developments, the review conference was a dreadful failure. The participants succumbed to wrangles over procedure and the conference concluded with no substantive agreement at all.
	I raised the matter in the House in the summer Adjournment debate in July, and I was grateful for the reply that I received from the Government by way of a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. He wrote that
	a very small group of countries seemed determined from the outset to ensure that no substantive outcome was achieved, contrary to our wishes and to the wishes of the vast majority of States Parties attending.
	However, my hon. Friend was keen to assure me in his letter that it is not unheard of for NPT review conferences to be unsuccessful, and that there are other forums where progress could be made. He pointed to the forthcoming United Nations millennium review summit in New York in September.
	Hopes were indeed high for the millennium review summit. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had published a report entitled In Larger Freedom for decision at the summit by the world's leaders. The Secretary-General's report made key recommendations concerning all three pillars of the NPT. The G8 at Gleneagles issued a communiqu on non-proliferation, which welcomed the attention given to non-proliferation in the Secretary-General's report, and declared themselves ready to engage actively at the summit.
	The Minister responsible for international security, who I am pleased to see in his place, was quite right when he said a week before the summit that it
	presents an opportunity to reaffirm strongly the international consensus against proliferation and to reiterate our support for all elements of the non-proliferation regime, including the NPT and to move the agenda forward. We need to do so now more than ever.
	The whole House should agree with that statement.
	At the summit itself, the Prime Minister said in his address that
	The United Nations must strengthen its policy against non-proliferation; in particular, how to allow nations to develop civil nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
	Of course, we had the statement by the head of the UK delegation to the NPT review conference, Ambassador John Freeman, on 5 May, which was also the date of the British general election. Speaking on behalf of the British Government to the diplomats in New York, he said:
	we recognise that we have particular obligations, as a Nuclear Weapon State, under Article 6 of the Treaty. We re-affirm our unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament.
	But long before our Prime Minister got to his feet, it had become clear that no progress would be made. In fact, the sections of the Secretary-General's report on disarmament and non-proliferation had been removed entirely. I cannot exaggerate the disappointment that must have been felt worldwide by those who follow these issues.
	For their part, the UK Government have also expressed disappointment, and in the EU statement circulated at the world summit it was claimed that
	the UK as EU Presidency was involved in the extensive efforts to broker agreement'
	on the key issues of non-proliferation and disarmament.
	If my hon. Friend could elaborate for us on what happened at the summit, I would be most grateful. Why was no progress made? Why were the sections of the Secretary-General's report dealing with disarmament and non-proliferation removed entirely? How was it that the international community once again
	allowed posturing to get in the way of results,
	as Kofi Annan himself put it? I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to provide us with a full statement of what actually happened in New York last month.
	This summer on 7 July we had the London suicide bombings, and earlier this evening the House gave a Second Reading to the Terrorism Bill. There is rightly a focus on terrorism. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that a nuclear weapon, even a small one, has the capacity to kill thousands of people. The growth of international terrorism makes the prospect of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons an increasingly alarming one, and that is surely a reason why Governments should be striving harder for progress.
	When I had the good fortune to address the House before the summer recess, I took the opportunity to set out five proposals for progress: the universal adoption of the International Atomic Energy Agency's additional protocol; incentives for countries to forgo fuel cycle facilities; a fissile material cut-off treaty; entry into force of the comprehensive test ban treaty, which is still not in operation, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows better than I do; and disarmament. Disarmament is one of the three pillars of the NPT, and it is essential that progress is made on the elimination of all nuclear weapons as agreed by the NPT states, including the UK, at the review conference in 2000. That is what we signed up to.
	The current security climate has rightly led to calls for a tougher non-proliferation regime for non-nuclear weapons states. However, while we nuclear weapons states are perceived as disengaged from our side of the NPT deal, there is a danger that our insistence on non-proliferation will not carry adequate credibility with the non-nuclear states. In that context, I gently put it to my hon. Friend that a decision to replace Trident would further weaken the credibility of our case for stronger non-proliferation measures and would be seen as yet more evidence that the countries that had nuclear weapons at the start of the NPT are not prepared to deliver on their side of the bargain.
	It is not contentious to say that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has made our world a safer place than it otherwise could have been. Equally, however, no one disputes the fact that the NPT regimes desperately need to be strengthened and urgently need to be updated. Will my hon. Friend set out as fully as he can the Government's view on why things went so badly wrong at the millennium summit as regards nuclear weapons? Will he also set out the work that the Government are doing to push matters forward in helping to get the world back on track on nuclear proliferation and disarmament?

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important that the Government pressurise other countries to sign the NPT, including Israel, which has nuclear weapons but has so far refused even to admit to ownership of them, never mind signing the treaty?

Gavin Strang: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. We want all Governments to sign up to the treaty, and having done so to live up to the spirit and letter of it. I take his point absolutely.
	I am sure that the Minister is as disappointed as I am, and indeed the whole world is, about the failure to make progress at the millennium summit. The question is: where do we go from here? For most of my life, the dominant international reality was the existence of the cold war. I well remember the build-up of nuclear weapons by the Warsaw pact and NATO. I am just old enough to rememberI was a student at the timethe genuine fear that permeated the people of this country during the Cuban missile crisis. We were very conscious of the continued, remorseless build-up of nuclear weapons on both sides. I remember the deep concern aroused by the deployment of intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europethe Soviet SS20s and the US Cruise missiles. There was a very real risk that nuclear weapons would be used, starting with the intermediate range nuclear weapons and escalating quickly to the massive intercontinental ballistic missiles. Civilisation as we knew it would have been annihilated. Thankfully, those days are well behind us.
	The years in which we live now arguably provide a window, when we should be able to make genuine progress to avoid nuclear proliferation, to reduce nuclear stockpiles and the number of countries with nuclear weapons, and, ultimately, to abolish nuclear weapons. In that context, the events of the past few months are deeply regrettable. If the world's leaders do not effectively grasp the issue and make genuine progress, a future generation, if not this one, could pay a heavy price.

Kim Howells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) on securing the debate. Before addressing the specific issues that he raised, I thank him for highlighting the continuing value of the non-proliferation and disarmament regime. His excellent analysis shows why the non-proliferation treaty continues to be the cornerstone of United Kingdom counter-proliferation policy. He also demonstrated the regime's overall success in averting the future that President Kennedy envisaged in 1963. I, too, remember the Cuban crisis. I remember thinking that it was not fairI had just got into my stride and Aberdare was about to be obliterated. It was not a promising scenario.
	As my right hon. Friend reminded us, it is an important moment to reflect on the significance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran is restarting its nuclear conversion programme, with the threat of restarting the nuclear enrichment programme. There can be only one reason for that. It has nothing to do with civil nuclear power and everything to do with creating a nuclear bomb. As my right hon. Friend said, there are already enough of those around without adding to the number of nations that possess those lethal weapons.
	That said, the non-proliferation and disarmament regime continues to face genuine and pressing challenges. In response, the Government have consistently sought to work with our international partners to strengthen all three pillars of the treaty. In 2005, the highest-profile, but by no means the only forum for pursuing that effort was the review conference in May. As my right hon. Friend knows, it was thrown off course by procedural wrangling, and, as a result, there was no agreement on substance. As he hinted, a small group of countries at the review conferencethe revcon, as it is knownseemed determined from the outset to ensure that was the case. In a multilateral format, which relies on consensus, the tactic can win the day even when the majority of states present seek to achieve genuine advances. That was the case in New York in May.

Jeremy Corbyn: I know that the Minister has had a tiring day, so I am grateful to him for giving way. Does not he agree that it would greatly help the non-proliferation cause if Britain did not announce the redevelopment of the Trident submarine system or some replacement for it, but said that we adhered to the NPT and the goal of eventual nuclear disarmament by all states?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend has been in this place long enough to know that I will not answer that one.

Jeremy Corbyn: Come on.

Kim Howells: I say to him that the Government take the question seriously. Considering what we should do about the continuation and possession of a nuclear deterrent is a serious matter, which we shall tackle seriously. However, in this evening's debate, I should like to try to answer some of the questions posed by my right hon. Friend.
	My right hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, had edited or altered the form of words that might originally have been agreed for his speech. I am informed that the language of the treaty had been clear for some days, if not weeks, before Kofi Annan made his speech. It was Mr. Kofi Annan, no one else, who altered his speech, and there were no indications that he was under any pressure to do so. As far as I know, that is a very authoritative account of the procedure that occurred at that time, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it. I have met Mr. Annan on several occasions, and he is certainly not someone who can easily be swayed when it comes to saying what he intends to say. He is a fine diplomat who is known for his integrity.
	While the review conference did not conclude with a substantive final document, there is general agreement that there was a lot of good, detailed discussion of ways in which the treaty could be strengthened. We hope that these ideas will be taken up actively in other forums. I take my right hon. Friend's point about the hopes that we had for the millennium summit as the most important of those forums, and I understand his disappointment with the review conference that preceded it and with the failure to agree a form of words.
	However, I am trying to answer my right hon. Friend's most important question, which is: where do we go from here? I would say to him that we must use whatever forum is available to take forward this hugely important problem. He told us that no single problem was more important than this one, and I am sure that we would all agree. How can we imagine a world in which people were trying to live after a nuclear holocaust? There would not be one. This is a problem that we have lived with all our lives, and I want my right hon. Friend to know that we intend to try to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in whatever way we can, using whatever venue we can to pursue that aim.
	There were proposals at the review conference on measures to discourage withdrawal from the treaty. These drew widespread support, including from the European Union. The EU also played its part in setting out a progressive non-proliferation agenda through its agreement on and promotion of a forward-leaning common position on the non-proliferation treaty.
	Although our primary focus from a disarmament and non-proliferation perspective this year was, rightly, the NPT review conference, the disappointing outcome gave us added incentive to make strenuous efforts to remedy this at the UN world summit in September. That was why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agreed to take part in the initiative, promoted by his then Norwegian colleague, designed to generate broad support for a forward-looking non-proliferation agenda.
	Indeed, in the second week of the UN conference, I attended a meeting of the Norwegian group, and a great deal of passion was generated in the attempts of all the countries represented there to break through the dam of unwillingness to make progress on the language of the non-proliferation statement. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it was a great shame that we were unable to make progress there, despite the strength of that group. During our presidency of the European Union, we have also worked hard to secure European support for strong and meaningful commitments on non-proliferation and disarmament.
	Although it was again disappointing that the summit was unable to agree on commitments to disarmament and non-proliferation, I cannot entirely concur with my right hon. Friend's assessment that the summit was therefore a failure. The Norwegian initiative, in which we participated, obtained the support of more than 80 countriesmore than was achieved by any other means. So I hope that my right hon. Friend does not feel entirely gloomy about this. There is a great feeling that we can take this issue forward. He will know, as I do, that there is a great deal of work to be done, especially with the non-aligned members, some of whom were very intransigent on the question of the language. There is room there to celebrate success for the cause of nuclear non-proliferation.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has commented, if the reforms and commitments agreed at the summit are fully implemented, it will represent a major advance for the UN and the international community. The lack of an outcome on non-proliferation, regrettable though it is, should not detract from those real gains. Achieving full agreement on all the reforms put forward was always going to be very difficult. Rather than posturing getting in the way of results, that reflected the ambitious agenda and divergence of views between UN member states on many issues. The UK, in our presidency of the EU, worked to achieve the most extensive set of reforms possible, and we will continue to do so. Sadly, however, despite hard work by the UK in both its national and EU presidency capacities, pre-summit negotiations on non-proliferation issues proved very difficult.
	As my right hon. Friend said, that outcome was certainly a disappointment. But we should not be misled into believing that it heralds the collapse of the NPTI do not believe that my right hon. Friend believes that, and I certainly do not. Nor does it mean the collapse of the non-proliferation regime more widely. We believe that the challenges to the regime have served to bolster support for it rather than to undermine it. We share that commitment with the overwhelming majority of states and we will continue to use all available international forums to build consensus to strengthen the regime.
	My right hon. Friend drew our attention to a number of valuable initiatives in this regard, many of which the UK wholeheartedly supports. For example, we are taking every opportunity to encourage all states to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency's additional protocol, and are actively working with others to formulate appropriate incentives for countries to forgo fuel cycle facilities. Both have formed part of the activity of the G8 during the United Kingdom's presidency. While we fully recognise the right of states that are in compliance with their obligations under the NPT to use and benefit from nuclear technology, as set out in article 4, it is clear that the nuclear fuel cycle presents particularly acute proliferation risks, which is why we have been promoting controls on the transfer of sensitive technology to be implemented in an objective and non-discriminatory manner.
	There are some very interesting proposals for fuel supply assurances, to establish either real or virtual banks of nuclear fuel, with some element of international involvement. I know that my right hon. Friend is very interested in some of those possibilities. It is far from straightforward, however, as one can see from the fact that Governments and experts have been trying to find a solution to this for some years. A number of complicated technical and political issues remain to be resolved, but I believe that there is now increasing international political will to reach an agreement on the way forward.
	The IAEA general conference last month demonstrated a particularly good spirit of co-operation and determination among states to strengthen non-proliferation and address other issues such as the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Those are very important building blocks. The UN First Committee, which is currently in session, the UN Security Council resolution 1540 committee and the G8 global partnership are all forums in which we are actively participating. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to reassure him sincerely
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at four minutes past Eight o'clock.